[Speaker 15] (6:53 - 6:54)
Did you hear that?

[Speaker 5] (6:58 - 7:00)
The agenda. The agenda.

[Speaker 24] (7:00 - 7:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (7:16 - 7:29)
Good evening. Welcome everybody to the February 12th, 2024 Select Board Meeting. We do have several members of the DPW with us this evening, if they could stand and lead us in the pledge.

[Speaker 24] (7:35 - 7:47)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 4] (7:53 - 9:03)
Good evening. Before we get started, just a couple of administrative items. The Select Board is aware of an article published in the Lynn Item on February the 9th.

Complaints were filed in 2020 and 2023, respectively, both are currently under review by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, and the Select Board knows these complaints exist. The town disagrees with the filed complaints, and the town is vigorously defending itself. So everyone knows it's within the rights of the current and former employees to file complaints with MCAD.

Additionally, the town administrator is also a town employee, and his rights must also be protected. As this is a personnel matter that is currently in the legal process, we're not going to take any questions or speak further to this in a public meeting this evening. And then once we get through the town administrator's report, we will go into public comment.

Each member of the public can stand and speak. You will be limited to two minutes this evening. I know there are a lot of people that wish to speak their mind.

So with no further ado, town administrator's report.

[Speaker 3] (9:03 - 12:48)
Thank you, David. So tonight, I hope we hear more about some of the community feedback regarding our hotel RFP finalists. The board will be discussing that later tonight.

Certainly an important generational time for Swanship. Kings Beach continues to be a top priority. This past week, I had participated in a follow-up meeting to go over some of the deliverables from our February 2nd meeting with the Undersecretary of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Stephanie Cooper.

We have a meeting scheduled in the next two weeks with representatives from the DEP and EPA to discuss the town's ongoing IDDD efforts. This is the work that we have been undergoing over the last 10 years, really, to sleeve the pipes in town. We are looking at peroxide acid, PPA.

This is a type of acid that can treat bacteria in our storm drains. We are asking DEP and the EPA to do a field bench scale test. This will allow us to determine whether or not this type of treatment can protect human health and be used in our environment.

We are continuing to look at UV. We are continuing to look at an outfall pipe. Ultimately, the thought is that all of these strategies have to be looked at simultaneously as we try to determine what would be the most efficient and effective protection of human health.

We have a committee that is reviewing our diversity, equity, and inclusion finalists. We had a really robust group of individuals. We have four firms that we are going to be screening on February 13th, and the goal is to present two finalists publicly to discuss their strategies to help us really continue to make progress with how we build a more inclusive community.

Last week, I did meet with the library board of trustees. They continue to share a passion about how we expand library services and address some of the existing challenges with our library building. Max Casper, our facilities director, and Steve Cummings, our building commissioner, are going to walk through the library with the library director to just ensure that we are on top of the status of good repair.

There will be a community engagement event this Thursday, February 15th, here at the Senior Center at 6 p.m. to talk about pickleball courts and our proposal to build a pickleball court in town. So I would encourage folks to come and bring your thoughts and ideas about pickleball. Senior Center continues to do some extraordinary work.

Pleased that we're here this week. We have more than doubled the number of programs and initiatives and events for our seniors, and just want to thank our Senior Center staff for all of their extraordinary work. Town Clerk has been very busy.

We are looking at our presidential elections and early voting hours, and really want to remind folks that our local election is Saturday, April 20th, from 11 to 5. Town Hall will be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 8 a.m. to noon on Friday, April 26th. That's my report.

Thanks, Sean.

[Speaker 4] (12:49 - 12:50)
Questions, comments from the Board?

[Speaker 6] (12:52 - 13:00)
I have a question, Sean, on the IADDE with EPA. Have they discussed anything as far as the consent decree?

[Speaker 3] (13:01 - 13:03)
We always talk about the consent decree.

[Speaker 6] (13:03 - 13:04)
What is their position?

[Speaker 3] (13:05 - 13:25)
Their position is that we signed a legally binding agreement with the federal government to move forward and work on a scope of work that is agreed to by the Town and the EPA to sleeve pipes that lead to infiltration into Stacey's Brook and the outfall onto Kings Beach.

[Speaker 6] (13:26 - 13:28)
So they're good with that progress?

[Speaker 3] (13:28 - 13:53)
I'm not going to speak for them. I will tell you that I've been working on this for six years, and I don't think we've made sufficient progress. It's the reason why I've advocated that we look at supplemental investments besides IADDE, because I think we'll continue to do their scope of work under IADDE for the rest of our lives, and we'll still have a beach that will be unsuitable for human enjoyment.

[Speaker 5] (13:58 - 14:09)
In follow-up to that, we have a contract with Kleinfelder to begin Phase 2 work, and we had a chance to sign that, and has that process started?

[Speaker 3] (14:10 - 14:51)
Yes, we've signed the contract. We're working with the EPA to go over that scope, because we want to make sure that we actually are getting feedback from DEP and the EPA. We want to make sure that if there are ways that they can advise, guide, and support how we target some of these dollars, it's millions of dollars, but we need 10, 20, 30, 50 million.

We don't know how many millions of dollars we need to ultimately fix that problem, and we want to use those dollars as strategically as possible. This is the $2.5 million that we voted on. That's the $2.5 million we got from the state recently.

[Speaker 5] (14:51 - 14:57)
Right, so moving forward on that, so we've signed that, and we're negotiating with EPA.

[Speaker 3] (14:58 - 15:17)
EPA and DEP. EPA ultimately approves that scope, but DEP also, EPA listens very closely to DEP, too. These are state dollars, and the special legislation that was passed required the DEP to actually approve that scope, too.

[Speaker 1] (15:19 - 16:53)
Thanks. I just wanted to follow up on one thing, David. Last week, I thought, I appreciate, David, you putting the discussion with Harbor and the climate action, and so we could have a conversation about resiliency.

I guess, Sean, I went back and looked at the capital plan, and so I think there's clearly some additional thought that needs to be given about resiliency, both resiliency in the context of saving things and making them themselves more resilient, all of the pier, and resiliency in terms of protecting the coastline, and so I just, we're about to go into capital. Right now, the capital recommendations are devoid of a meaningful resiliency focus, and while I appreciate that we all, you know, want to say we have a 20, 30-year outlook for things, we're not waiting 20 or 30 years for these things, so I wonder if we can, in March, reconvene, maybe with Harbor and Waterfront, maybe with climate action, maybe with renewable energies, maybe with capital improvements, to just start talking in more detail about the resiliency things. There are some really important things that are in the Harbor plan. There's things that we're not even talking about as a community, and it would be a shame, I think, for the fiscal year 2025 capital budget to go through without us at least having some thoughtful conversations about what we may be able to do in the next fiscal year.

[Speaker 3] (16:54 - 17:06)
Peter, that's a great suggestion. I've already reached out to staff to really talk about how to redouble some of those investments, so I'll work with those committees to, you know, get those scheduled with David.

[Speaker 14] (17:09 - 17:15)
If you guys could just bring your mics closer to the mic. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (17:17 - 17:44)
David, I just want one other thing. Go ahead. Sean, you went through it.

Just since, especially since we're sitting here in the Senior Center, these numbers on the Senior Center and what has happened year over year are just phenomenal. It really is. You kind of just kind of said everything doubled, but it might not be a bad thing just to share with people just, like, exactly, I don't know how it's happened.

I don't think their budget's doubled, so. It has doubled.

[Speaker 3] (17:44 - 20:17)
Their budget has doubled over the last four years. Over the last four years, but this is doubling over the last year. It is.

So, you know, we actually, you know, over the last couple of years, we've moved from a part-time director of senior services to a full-time director of all ages. We've hired a full-time assistant director. We have really such a robust team here.

We had, in fiscal year 2022, we had 1,424 members. In fiscal 2023, we have 2,624 members. We have, in fiscal 2022, for fitness and exercise, we had 1,133 individuals participate in fitness and exercise programs.

In FY23, we had 3,438 members for recreation and entertainment. In FY22, we had 1,771. In FY23, we had 3,952.

Our average daily attendance in FY22 was 26. The average daily attendance in FY23 is 52. In FY22, we had 125 unique outreach services provided.

In FY23, we had 361 unique outreach services provided. In FY22, we had 6,015 total events. In FY23, we had 13,219.

And lastly, and really almost the most important issue that seniors face is transportation. In FY22, we had 454 rides. In FY23, we had 1,078 rides.

And so that really speaks to the extraordinary care that our team at Swanskate Senior Center really provides our seniors. We have the oldest demographic of the 34 cities and towns in Essex County. And so this is an area where we have really failed to make important investments.

And I'm really proud that we're on the upswing. I think there's more work for us to do. And I think these numbers prove that we're making the right investments in this area.

[Speaker 1] (20:19 - 20:44)
Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing. Go ahead. If you wouldn't mind, I see that you mentioned earlier that several members of the DPW are here.

I'm wondering if we can maybe, I think it's a relatively short thing, do that next, just because we're going to ask a lot of our DPW workers over the next 24 hours, and they've already put in a full day today. So I think we'd rather give them a chance to rest as opposed to keep them here prolonged. So maybe you think about taking them out of order.

That makes sense to me.

[Speaker 4] (20:44 - 20:53)
I'll do that with the indulgence of the board. Yep. John, is that, are you going to start to come from that presentation?

[Speaker 3] (20:53 - 24:10)
I'm happy to bring that presentation up. Diane, could you bring up the collective bargaining presentation? And, okay.

We have Amy Sauer, our Director of Finance and Administration online. I'm happy to step through. Our DPW department has 16 members.

This proposed cost of living is a three-year contract for a total of $125,468. This collective bargaining contract actually proposes a new salary table with a fourth step. A fourth step.

We actually, over the last few years, have worked with the DPW to really add more structure to their collective bargaining agreement. This allows us to really help, you know, provide more of a career path. You know, we've added a Mechanic Equipment Operator, H, and Mechanic Equipment Operator, S, and a Working Foreman.

These are new jobs with new steps in lanes. It's important to recognize our DPW is a public safety department. Our police department, our fire department, they have, you know, contract elements that are significant, and this contract deserves to have some of those similar grades and steps.

We're proposing a 1.5% cost of living for years two and three. Steps between 2% and 3.5% within grades based on certain positions. This includes a $1,000 signing bonus for members in the O-grade Mechanic Equipment Operator.

We're increasing longevity by $100 for each level. We're adding OSHA training for public work employees, a reduction of mandatory breaks from 45 minutes per four hours to 30 minutes. We're adding snow and ice break for the first 30 minutes, and additional breaks remain at 45 minutes.

We've settled a number of arbitration issues, and we've adjusted vacation time for new employees from one week to two weeks. That's the basic tenet of this agreement. I think this is a contract that helps us really build upon structure.

I know oftentimes we talk about cost of living increases, but that's not the only contract items that we're really looking at we want. This collective bargaining contract to really create career paths and really help develop careers for generations of individuals that provide public safety service. We flush our toilets, we expect it to work.

We turn on our water, we expect it to work. This is the department that helps us support those things that oftentimes we take for granted. They're out there 24-7 keeping us safe during the worst weather.

It's important that this contract takes care of them and supports a fair contract for the work that they do.

[Speaker 4] (24:11 - 24:16)
Thanks, Sean. Questions from the board of either the town administrator or the director of finance?

[Speaker 1] (24:20 - 26:22)
So, I do, if that's okay. I just want to, Sean, you intimated cost of living because you knew that I was going to say something about cost of living adjustments. I did.

I just, each of these contracts has different levers financially. Some have steps and lanes, which means their annual increases are measured both in terms of just seniority or position and the cost of living adjustments, so there's a compounding multiple things. But there's also a number of contracts where there aren't steps and lanes.

There's contracts where cost of living is the sole or almost the sole escalator of people's contract. And I just, I get that there's a history of these contracts having these diverse economic tools in them. But I hope that you continue to work to a place where we can treat cost of living as exactly what it is.

Which is everyone experiences the same cost of living adjustment so that everyone should be receiving the same cost of living adjustment. I understand it doesn't work apples to apples because contracts were formulated in ways that there are other economic stimulants and increases built in these things, but I am particularly just focused on and getting to the day where when you're negotiating contracts, the COLA isn't seen as the only lever the town has. And it's not seen as a negotiating tool as opposed to saying, look it, cost of living is cost of living.

We've got to adjust to cost of living, right? Let's talk about the other stuff, but cost of living should not be one of those things that should be on the bargaining table. And so again, I'm just saying my piece as I have in other contracts to make sure that you're, and I know you are focused on it.

I know how difficult it is, but I just feel as though it's an unfortunate cudgel in negotiations. And that's, I get it, but hopefully we get to a point where every town employee like any of us would say my cost of living adjustments should be the same as your cost of living adjustment because that's really how the world works here. Municipal contracts are very different, but I hope that we get there.

[Speaker 3] (26:24 - 27:12)
You know, I appreciate that. I, you know, unfortunately it's just so hard. You know, I have two sides and every one of our contracts, teachers, police, fire, you know, that cost of living is a little different and the negotiations are a little different.

They all have different strategies and so, you know, it's a two-way street, you know, and we've got to be mindful of how that affects all the different units. They all are at different times, but ideally it would be great if the color was set and we didn't have to worry about that. And, you know, every union or every employee had the same cost of living.

I agree with that ideal. It just doesn't work out that way. We sit down at the table.

[Speaker 1] (27:13 - 27:40)
One of my last questions, just as I know we're going to talk about it when we get to the special town meeting warrants, and you've added a warrant article three. I just want to make two in order to pay for these contract adjustments, and it's requiring a change to the fiscal year 24 budget. I just want to make sure that the finance team and you are highly confident with the offsetting of costs to be able to pay for, I think it's an amount of $45,490 in fiscal year 23.

I just want to make sure that we address that.

[Speaker 3] (27:40 - 27:52)
Yes. You know, we sat down with the finance team. Amy, perhaps you can share some insight into, you know, the review of the budget and how we've gone through to try to ensure we have funding available for that.

[Speaker 23] (27:52 - 28:21)
Yeah, so in making sure we had the correct cost of contract for this, I sat down with the DPW director to make sure that we had all the information for when the staff was stepping for their anniversaries and making sure that we had all the incidentals included. As of right now, the health insurance line is projected to have tailings this year, which is where we're doing this adjustment out of so that we're doing it within the general fund appropriation.

[Speaker 6] (28:24 - 28:27)
How much tailings are you anticipating?

[Speaker 23] (28:29 - 28:42)
Net of the Article 1 for the school, it was about $145,000. We're still projected to have $100,000 in tailings in the health insurance line after Article 3.

[Speaker 5] (28:49 - 29:39)
I'm just really glad that we've been able to come to agreement on this. A little bit delayed, obviously, because this applies for this fiscal year as well as the next couple of years. But, you know, as you, I think, well said, Sean, the folks here in DPW are doing some very, very critical work for us every single day around town, and we've been able to figure out a way, I hope, that's been fair to everybody to kind of make some adjustments in their base pay and the steps and lanes that kind of makes the appropriate adjustments, especially in these fiscal times, the pressures that people have been under while still kind of adhering to our overall fiscal guidance. So I'm glad we're in this place, and I'm looking forward to moving forward on this. Is that a motion?

I don't want to jump the gun if anyone else has any other comments.

[Speaker 6] (29:39 - 29:42)
Can you just confirm the date? When does this go out to?

[Speaker 23] (29:45 - 29:48)
This goes until June 30th, 2026.

[Speaker 3] (29:50 - 29:50)
That's FY26.

[Speaker 5] (29:54 - 30:08)
I don't know since we skipped public comment whether or not we feel like we really need to have an opportunity for people to speak on this, or that's not really necessary with this type of contract, but I just wanted to be aware of that. I don't believe so.

[Speaker 1] (30:09 - 30:27)
So I'd make a motion to approve the DPW contract on the terms set forth by the town administrator.

[Speaker 2] (30:28 - 30:28)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (30:29 - 30:29)
All in favor?

[Speaker 2] (30:29 - 30:30)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (30:31 - 30:32)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 2] (30:32 - 30:33)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (30:35 - 31:07)
All right. Now we will move on to public comment. Public comment.

Can you come just out of the doorway just so we're clear with the egresses? Thank you. Public comment.

We can have residents come up one by one. Please announce your name, street address, and voting precinct. If known, you'll have two minutes to make your public comment, after which time I'll cut you off.

[Speaker 2] (31:10 - 31:13)
There are more seats in the front if there are folks outside.

[Speaker 8] (31:22 - 33:39)
Can you hear me? Sorry. I'm a little challenged vertically.

For those of you that don't know, my name is Danielle Leonard. My address is 93 Linden Ave, Precinct 6. Thank you.

So I have some comments tonight. I'm not here to talk about personnel issues, first and foremost. I am here to talk about the thought process behind this elective body placing on the agenda tonight discussion of an extension or renewal of the contract of the town administrator.

I have an HR background. That is what I do for a living. I am employed by Harvard University in their human resources department.

And it is completely lost on me why we would entertain or think that this is something of importance to the people of this town that we would rush through with a year and a half left on the contract and actually try to put through an extension. In light of the disgusting article from the Lynn item that is merely the tip of the iceberg with what we're dealing with in this town. Why this body would think that the people sitting in this building tonight who are here for this very reason, why you would think that that is something that we want done.

Need I remind you people that you are here because we elected you to be. We elected each and every one of you to speak on our behalf in the betterment of this town. So it is lost on me as a taxpayer, as a human resources professional, and just as a human being, why we would entertain this.

And why if we knew, and you all did certainly know, that that article was eventually going to come out, why an outside external investigation wasn't done concerning these very troubling allegations. That really is the basis for why all of these people are here tonight. And we can dodge and say we're not going to talk about personnel.

It's a personnel issue. But at the end of the day, you guys are responsible for putting things on an agenda.

[Speaker 4] (33:40 - 33:40)
Thank you, Ms. Leonard.

[Speaker 8] (33:41 - 33:48)
And you chose to put an extension or renewal of a contract that has 1.5 years left on it.

[Speaker 4] (33:48 - 33:49)
Thank you, Ms. Leonard.

[Speaker 17] (34:00 - 34:15)
We're not going to respond. I don't expect you to. But it's not going to stop.

This isn't going to stop. We're not going to stop. You're not going to run this town.

[Speaker 4] (34:21 - 34:26)
You're not going to be allowed to continue to avoid this attack. Hey, please, please, please, please sit down.

[Speaker 19] (34:26 - 34:31)
No. Be quiet. You had your two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (34:35 - 34:41)
It's inappropriate the way you're treating our meeting. Can we just go, David, can we just go on to the next public comment, please?

[Speaker 2] (34:41 - 34:45)
How about if somebody else would like to rise for public comment and come to the microphone, please?

[Speaker 20] (34:50 - 34:55)
Elizabeth Pappalardo, Precinct 3. I'd like to yield my two minutes to Danielle.

[Speaker 8] (35:02 - 36:56)
We can do this all night. We can do it all week, all month, all year. It is not for you guys to decide what's important to the people that live here, right?

That's what we elected you to do, and none of you have done it, right? With the exception of Mary Ellen, who goes out on a limb every damn time. Nothing, nothing but verbal abuse as you banter, as Peter yells at her, as Peter yells at anybody who disagrees with him.

We're tired of it. We're done. It's not going to continue.

So now, your culture has now infiltrated town hall, where the town administrator cultivates an environment of hostility, negativity, and absolute disgrace. That is what this town has now become. That's what we're known for, for that article in the Lynn Item.

That's disgusting. And you guys are sitting here trying to tell me that he deserves a raving review, and you want to push through his contract and extend it. What world are you people living in?

Where are you living? Are you living in Swampscot? Because you're concerned with the voting age, and let's push through 18 to 16.

Are you serious? Are you that out of touch that you don't realize what's happening in your own town? Really?

I mean, do you think all these people are here to talk about your DPW contract? Do you think they're here for just the hell of it? They're here because you're not doing your job.

And you know what? It's going to come back to bite you. If you don't want to do your job, step aside, right?

If you're not going to listen to the will of the people of this town, step aside. This isn't Peter Spellio's town. This is Swampscot.

We count. Thank you. You can't brush us off.

[Speaker 4] (36:56 - 36:56)
Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (36:56 - 36:58)
You can't ignore us. We're not going away.

[Speaker 4] (36:58 - 36:59)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (37:13 - 37:15)
Mr. Chairman, can we move on to our first agenda item, please?

[Speaker 24] (37:16 - 37:16)
Sure.

[Speaker 17] (37:22 - 39:14)
Andrea Moore, Precinct 3. I also want to speak on behalf of my concerns regarding the extension of the town administrator's contract. Two weeks ago, in response to the question I asked at the Hadley School RFP, I received an unprofessional and hostile email from one select board member in which I was called quote righteous, quote a zealot, and claimed that I quote, seeked to do harm to our community.

I forwarded that email to the select board and Sean Fitzgerald for their records. In response, Sean Fitzgerald requested that I give him a call to discuss the issue, which I did. The conversation which ensued was frustrating to say the very least.

I don't think I was able to say anything for the first 10 minutes of our call. There was no apology within those 10 minutes. He encouraged me to quote be more positive with outsiders so I don't tarnish the image of our town.

He criticized me for not coming to him first before bringing up King's Beach to the hotel developers who told me that they were not informed by the town that the beach was polluted. I told Sean that after months of attempting to collaborate and getting promises from him of more prominent and explicit signage at Stacey's Brook Outfall, that I'd lost trust in him as an administrator. I believe that this not listening is part of a pattern.

The neighbors abutting the proposed pickleball court have cited multiple times that they haven't been consulted. The neighbors of Hadley's Hotel feel disincluded in a conversation that directly affects them. Leadership tone starts at the top.

I don't believe that the tone of our leadership is what's best for all citizens of our town.

[Speaker 3] (39:26 - 42:16)
I'm sorry. David, I'd like to say a few things. Go ahead.

Look, I appreciate the criticisms. I'm not perfect. What I've heard tonight has been unfair.

I respect the fact that people work in human resources, but to use language that infers that somebody might be disgusting or there are acts that have been portrayed by one side in an article, it's just, it's unfair. There's nobody here that would want their son or their daughter or their family member to be subjected to unfair criticisms. I work to try to protect the integrity of this town.

I make enormous sacrifices to do the right thing. I have tried incredibly hard to speak with everybody to try to find common ground. I'm not perfect, but I am passionate about public service.

I'm passionate about doing good work. I want people to be kinder. I want people to be nicer.

I want people to be better about how we treat each other. And all I see is people standing up and casting stones and not asking about, you know, do we have all sides? The information that the reporter put in the paper didn't have the town's response to the complaints because it's confidential.

It's not going to be released until it goes through a due process. But it's good enough to be on the front page of a paper. And it's good enough for people to take and rally behind and bring so many unfair things.

And again, I want to go through this process. There's not an iota of information that I don't want to have become public. There's not an iota of information.

And I would stand up in front of everybody and ask at some point that it all gets public. But I have a responsibility to protect employees too. And, frankly, there are other people involved in this.

And I can't stand up in a soapbox and get into the details without violating people's right to privacy. It's good enough for folks to come here, though, and take that one-sided perspective. It's unfair.

[Speaker 4] (42:19 - 42:22)
No, you can come to the microphone.

[Speaker 6] (42:26 - 42:28)
I understood what you said.

[Speaker 18] (42:28 - 42:51)
I just think the whole point of what was spoken here tonight was about the extension of the contract that still has a year and a half to go. It wasn't necessarily saying there's information that we don't know. It was saying, why is this even an agenda item?

With a town administrator that many people are disappointed in, you of all people, I would think, would be like, absolutely, let's see what happens with all of this and then extend my contract if I'm worthy.

[Speaker 4] (42:53 - 43:03)
Thank you. All right, we're going to move on. We're going to move on to discussion and possible vote on the Hadley School Hotel designated developer.

[Speaker 15] (43:03 - 43:20)
Sorry, I just got here. I'm late. I'm late now.

We're going to move on. Sorry. I apologize.

I had to drop my child off to basketball practice. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 10] (43:24 - 43:28)
Go ahead. It's an arrogance that we see.

[Speaker 15] (43:29 - 43:57)
I'm only a recent member to Swampscot Precinct 4. I've been here 10 years. I don't understand how we can entertain extending a contract with the allegations.

And I just think we can do better as a town. And it's embarrassing. That's all I had to say.

And I would yield the rest of my time to Leonard because I was listening to it in the car. And I think she echoed a lot of my points. All right, have a good day.

[Speaker 10] (44:08 - 44:12)
I have not been to a select meeting.

[Speaker 4] (44:12 - 44:13)
Ma'am, name, address.

[Speaker 10] (44:13 - 47:15)
Elise Delamore, 29 Galoops Point Road. I don't know what my precinct, it's fifth or sixth. What I will say is given what I do professionally, my question to the body is what is our goal?

And as I'm hearing, like, this group focused on one aspect of the concerns that have been raised here. And, yes, the citizens are upset. But what I want to pull back for just a minute away from any content issue we're discussing is process.

How can we expect our children to speak to one another with respect when their parents don't seem to be capable of doing so? When I have a college student walk into my classroom, I am 98% confident I know what their parents are like. And I waited to have children because I thought I will be damned if I will raise an entitled student like this.

And I will tell you, I have a special high-needs daughter who was adopted out of foster care from multigenerational trauma. And the way she has been treated by her peers and by school administrators has been absolutely obscene. And I will tell you, this town has failed both my children educationally in spite of very fierce advocacy.

And I will tell you that I am here because the last meeting I was in was three weeks after our house burnt down. And we were unable to rebuild because of favoritism in the zoning process. It is wrong.

It has got to stop. Substantive conflict leads to better decisions. Given the lack of communication and transparency in terms of decisions that are being made that impact the quality of our community, like what the Hadley School looks like, how much parking there is, how many rooms there are, to think that it is appropriate to push that through without appropriate public discourse only speaks volumes.

And we don't need any more data to support what's already been said about the disappointment. And it's not about one personnel decision. It is about a systematic exclusion of civilized, smart dialogue.

[Speaker 4] (47:15 - 47:16)
Thank you.

[Speaker 24] (47:25 - 47:26)
All right, we'll move on.

[Speaker 12] (47:31 - 47:31)
Keep on.

[Speaker 3] (47:45 - 47:46)
Hey, can you hear me?

[Speaker 22] (47:48 - 48:47)
Didn't realize I had to press unmute. Sorry about that. All right, cool.

So I've got two little kids running around. I noticed on the agenda there is an item about contracts for a bunch of the town roads, including town administrator. And I looked at the bylaws and I was wondering, just coming from a business background, I'm used to kind of a standard process for hiring folks for my companies.

And I'm wondering what sort of the process is when these contracts come up, particularly for town administrator. How do we ensure that we have the best talent? And what sort of voice does the community have to give input on whether or not we should be getting resumes and making sure that we have the best folks for the job?

[Speaker 1] (49:01 - 49:24)
So I think tonight, I'm sorry, are we going with Hadley? So I think tonight before the board is a continuation of getting public feedback on the three finalists that presented almost two weeks ago now to the select board.

[Speaker 4] (49:28 - 49:34)
We don't respond to public comment. Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (49:39 - 49:40)
Please.

[Speaker 4] (49:43 - 49:47)
All right. Well, we're going to we're going to continue with our meeting. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (49:52 - 50:06)
The RFP process most recent step concluded with this mission of seven proposals on December 22nd to the town. Those seven proposals.

[Speaker 7] (50:11 - 50:31)
It's all important, may I say. All of it is important. We're losing a town property.

And I'm the only freaking lunatic talking about it. Please have a seat, everybody. Everything is important.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (50:32 - 53:42)
Don't need to me or allow. So the proposals before the proposals were seven proposals, which ultimately, with the help of pinnacle advisers, was whittled down to three proposals. All seven proposals as for since December.

I think the first week in January, all seven proposals are on the town website for all to peruse. Two weeks ago, we had interviews of three finalists. Those finalists were reached as a result of discussions with pinnacle advisers.

Who's the town's hotel consultant and a brief board and some interviews that a subcommittee did with all seven groups. Last week, we had the first round of this stage, anyways, of comments about the interviews and the proposals. I will say that we've had, you know, sat through years of hearing comments.

I will say this. I felt like the comments were probably as constructive and really helpful and thought provoking and had a lot of great ideas. And so our hope tonight is that others who didn't have a chance to speak last week that would like to speak about the three finalists give us feedback.

The tentative plan is under 30B procurement law. In order for us to enter into negotiations with any party, the board's next step would be to designate one of the developers to advance negotiations. That then would only lead to further public meetings and discussions about their proposal and the details of the proposals.

As I said last week, the process that was undertaken with regard to the Michon School and the affordable housing of the Michon School is a similar process that we anticipate taking with regard to the Hadley School. Which is a process that actually adds an extra layer of public participation above and beyond that if this was a private development. If this was a private development, the development would only be required to submit to the zoning board or the planning board, go through the public process there, and seek approvals.

Because this is a public process, any designs, any proposals first have to come before us before they ever can go before a zoning board and a planning board. So assuming a designation of a developer and a successful negotiation, that would then lead to further interaction with the community and the board with regard to their specific project. All three groups, when they came before us two weeks ago, indicated that their ideas and their proposals are initial ideas based on initial look at what they think this property could be successfully used for.

But all committed to working with the community, with the neighbourhood specifically, the community general, about the final details of the project. All the projects complied, with the exception of one, with the zoning that was approved by town meeting at last May's annual town meeting. Tonight, we're going to, Mr. Chairman, I think open the floor again for comments on the hotel to get additional feedback.

[Speaker 4] (53:42 - 54:04)
And then for the first time, have the board engage in a dialogue about the three finalists and next steps. So if we have members of the public that would like to rise and speak about the RFP, about any of the previous presentations, please stand up. Name, address, and you'll have two minutes.

[Speaker 16] (54:15 - 54:34)
I'll be brief because I did speak last week. I want to give some other people a chance. But we had very little discussion last week about the ground lease versus someone purchasing the property.

So I did want to reiterate, definitely in favour of ground lease, not selling the property. And I am an abutter of the property.

[Speaker 1] (54:35 - 55:43)
For those that weren't at the meeting last week, Mr. Chairman, if it's OK, I'll just reiterate. Go ahead and repeat a little bit of what I said about ground lease versus the fee. In the Michon project, the town did do a 99-year ground lease, which effectively is not unlike a lease that you would have with your tenant in a building.

The landlord reserves certain rights over the term of that lease to make sure that the behavior, the activities, the use of the property is consistent with what was agreed to in that lease. So here, I too would, and I'd be surprised if the board feels differently, but Laurie's comments about the ground lease is well taken. It provides an extra layer that helps give comfort and legal stability to make sure that generations from now, not now, but generations from now, that the town is still able to enforce the agreements and specifically what the property can be used for, what external changes can be made to the property, and things that could have an impact on not only the community generally, but also the neighborhood specifically. So I second Laurie's recommendation of that, and that would be consistent with what we did at the Michon school.

[Speaker 20] (55:49 - 56:00)
Elizabeth Pappalardo, Precinct 3. I didn't realize that selling it was even on the table. When we had talked about it at town meeting a couple of years ago, it was always going to be a ground lease.

So that changed?

[Speaker 1] (56:00 - 56:28)
No, it didn't change. The approval from town meeting actually is, I'm going to call it boilerplate language, which allows for the sale, the ground lease, or any other options there. I think you might be referring to at town meeting, I believe, I actually got up and said pretty similarly, to what I said here, which is I supported a ground lease for it.

So again, I don't think you're going to be surprised with the result here. My fellow board members are able to chime in for themselves, but I think the consensus is going to be a ground lease.

[Speaker 20] (56:28 - 56:38)
And the final three developers that you've narrowed it down to, can you tell us a little bit about them, and if you have any experience with them, having worked with them, or know anything about them personally?

[Speaker 1] (56:39 - 57:11)
Yeah, I wonder, I mean, I'm happy to do it. I don't know if Pete Caden's with us tonight, and Pete wants to do it, but I'm, Pete Caden, are you with us? I apologize, guys, I can't tell from this.

I am. Do you mind, Liz asked a good question, maybe. Do you mind just doing a kind of brief synopsis of the three proposals, best you can, and I will then chime in about kind of experiences and due diligence on the respondents, to the extent you don't have anything on that.

[Speaker 11] (57:12 - 59:14)
Sure. Yeah, I will give a brief, but certainly go back to the town website, we do have all of the proposals fully outlined, but the, so to start with Clearview, sorry, Clearview Delamar has proposed redeveloping the building in its entirety, in the entire building, redeveloping it into a boutique. The Clearview Delamar group is both the developer and the operator, so they would both develop the hotel, as well as operate the hotel under their brand.

It would be just shy of 60 rooms, and it would have the on-site parking. It would also have amenities such as restaurants and bar space. The Drew Company has proposed reusing the main school building, but replacing the annex with a new addition.

They also would be doing a hotel of about 60 rooms. Also on-site parking, they would have a majority of the first floor in the school building with public access, with a library, what they called a library space, a common space, a lobby, restaurant, a cafe, a possible retail space. And then the final project was the Nonet Group, and their proposal was also reusing the primary school building, but replacing the annex with a new addition.

That one included 62 rooms, on-site parking, and also with amenities such as restaurants, cafe, bar. And they had an alternate plan, as well, that would expand the building onto the commercial property along Humphrey Street that adjoins Hadley.

[Speaker 2] (59:16 - 59:26)
Pete, could you just state which projects proposed a fee versus lease in their proposal, please?

[Speaker 11] (59:27 - 59:39)
Sure. So of the three finalists, the Clearview and the Drew Companies have proposed ground leases. The Nonet Group was a purchase.

[Speaker 2] (59:39 - 59:52)
And we went back to Nonet and asked about a lease, a question regarding lease. Yeah. I believe they came back and said that they would consider it, so just to let you know.

[Speaker 20] (59:52 - 59:58)
Okay. And just to follow up, does anyone, any voting member, have any personal experience with any of these companies?

[Speaker 1] (59:58 - 1:00:59)
Yes. Or professional? Great question.

So the town engaged the Pinnacle Advisors, who's a, probably the lead preeminent hotel advisor in the Northeast, to work with the town and advise us to review all seven proposals and make recommendations, not just based on the proposals, but their experience in the track record. So based on that, Pinnacle helped us narrow down to these three groups. Sorry.

Based on that? There we go. Based on that, Pinnacle helped us narrow down to these three groups.

So I don't, I'm not going to speak for anybody here. I think that Pinnacle and Nonet have done more geographically in the Boston area than Delamar, but I don't think anybody on the board themselves, any of us, have experience with any of the three. So we really did two things.

In addition to our own interviews, we also relied on Pinnacle and their experience in terms of advising us to their experience with past projects, projects that have been successful, projects that have not been successful, and use their feedback to help guide our review of proposals.

[Speaker 20] (1:01:00 - 1:01:09)
And just a brief follow-up with Pinnacle. How was Pinnacle chosen? Does anyone have any personal or professional experience with Pinnacle?

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:09 - 1:03:34)
So Pinnacle is maybe one of two advisory firms in Boston, the only one that's not a broker-based advisory, so one that doesn't work on commission, as opposed to just being paid for their advice as opposed to success. And so I haven't any personal experience with Pinnacle. I don't believe anybody else here has experience, but they are very highly recommended, and I think all the proof for us is really, if you may recall, at town meeting when we were asking for town meeting permission to issue the RFP, consistent with the Hadley Reuse Report, we cautioned at that time, not knowing whether or not we would get a single proposal, that hotels are very difficult to do, suburban hotels are even more difficult to do. We received seven proposals, and I will say, again, my opinion, I think others can state their opinions, top to bottom, we've got a first-class group of respondents, some local, some not locals.

The three finalists certainly stand out as very experienced, not just somewhat experienced, and so I think personally I'm excited by the choice. I do not believe there is a bad choice. I do believe there is a better choice in here, but the fact that we got seven proposals was a direct response to Pinnacle working so hard on our behalf in terms of communicating with the hospitality community about this opportunity, answering questions, and really presenting this opportunity.

The depth of the field is really for all of us, none of us have built a hotel, we've all stayed at a Holiday Inn perhaps, but I think the depth of the field gave us greater confidence because we were able to compare and contrast and ask a lot of questions about one proposal to another proposal and say how come this proposal did this, how come you didn't do this, and so the committee met with all seven, we made the decision very early on to meet with all seven respondents and interview all seven respondents so we would have the opportunity to do that, and I think that depth, in my time here in RFP as we've done, it is the deepest response of anything. Michon, we had two respondents, Greenwood, we had one respondent, Pine Street, we had one respondent, which is much more than the norm, so I feel like the depth and the number of responses really speaks to the credibility of the responses.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:38 - 1:04:09)
There are a number of residents that did reach out to me after we picked Pinnacle to say that they were in the hotel industry and that having Pinnacle be part of this process was really a great decision that we made, and I can say I have no working background with Pinnacle or anyone else who has presented an RFP here.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:10 - 1:05:35)
Yes, so I'll just echo what Mary Ellen said. I have no working background with any of the respondents nor Pinnacle. However, all of the respondents commented on the RFP that was presented, a majority of which came with Pinnacle's guidance on the proposal of, I think they chose something like just shy of 50 rooms, and what they presented to respondents to grow from.

The respondents said it was spot on. It fit the parcel. They felt like it was very thoughtful.

Clearly, we the town had done our due diligence when presenting RFP to respondents and asking for responses back. We put a lot of the information, we laid a lot of the information out to get where we wanted to go, and that was extremely helpful, and that's why we got more respondents, I believe, because we laid the brickwork down. We had the zoning in place.

We had already had some of these conversations in advance per Pinnacle's guidance, and that made it easier for respondents to come forward and say these are serious players. They want to see this happen. This community is interested in this.

Now how do we put ourselves in the eyes of that community as the best choice?

[Speaker 24] (1:05:38 - 1:05:38)
Doug?

[Speaker 18] (1:05:42 - 1:07:06)
I'm Mary DiCillo, Precinct 4, and I live at 7 Rockland Street. So I look out my kitchen window, and I see the Hadley Playground. So it's stone's throw right around the corner.

I am a supporter of the project. A question I have I asked before, and I just want to sort of get some more clarification. Going forward, having a committee of neighbors and people that are interested in watching how this process, when is it going to be formed, what is it going to look like, who's going to be included, and what do the developers themselves, how have they talked about including a committee like this going forward?

And also my strong recommendation, like we did for the high school here, was to have a school. We had the school building committee, but this, obviously this, we're not going to own this part. We're going to be the leaser or whatever it's called.

But getting a committee that has a heterogeneous grouping of people that know about the trades and about all kinds of technical stuff so that when topics are brought up, there's some expertise on the financial expertise. So is there a plan, and when is the plan going to be put into place? Where does this happen?

Sooner rather than later, in my opinion. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:06 - 1:07:08)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cillo.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:08 - 1:09:01)
Peter, do you care to walk through the process? Yeah, so tonight's the first night that the select board is having conversations about this conversation. So we heard your question.

I appreciate you making the distinction between a school building committee, which is obviously taxpayer dollars and taxpayer-built, versus this, which is really going to be advisory and getting that kind of feedback. I'm thinking back to all of the interviews and the public presentations. My own recollection is I wasn't left uncomfortable by any of them when we asked them about community process.

I felt like all of them had worked in communities that had similar enough DNA as Swampscot, whether it be size or suburban to a metropolis, metropolitan area, things of that nature, and both have a track record that shows success. So I feel optimistic. That is, again, assuming the board moves forward with a designated developer, that then becomes part of our discussion process with them.

The LDA, which is one of the legal agreements that we have to execute, which is consistent with what we did at the Michon School, includes all those parameters. What's the process to get to a building permit? As I mentioned earlier, because we control the property, the town controls the property, the town can put in an extra layer of approvals, if you will, just like we did for the Michon School, which was the select board required design approval before you could even go to the zoning board or the planning board.

That process was a give-and-take over a several-month period, meeting with neighbors and talking about things. As you may recall, there was changes to parking made, there was changes to the facade made, there was site lighting that was concerned, and so some changes came out of that. So I would anticipate the same type of thing, but let's see kind of where the conversation goes tonight.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:02 - 1:10:35)
I think, too, most of the developers commented that, well, they have to put forth something to answer the RFP, that it wasn't set in stone, right? Nobody has decided that this is all the things that they are going to accomplish and that it is a collaboration with the community that makes the project successful. I think NoAnet commented most on that particular thought process because they came forward with Drew.

I mean, to be honest, they all did, but Drew also commented about community process and how they've been engaged in community process in their Georgia project. So I think they all understand the relationship with municipality is not the same as a relationship with a buyer of a piece of land. There's a vested interest here that we are not willing to just release, and I think they're all well aware of that, and not just that.

They are embracing it to say, yes, we are a marriage. This is a partnership. We're coming to the table in good faith to be a good partner to the community.

Yes, they want to make money and they want to build a hotel that makes money, but they also understand that they will make more money and have a better relationship going forward with a potential lessor of 99 years if we have a good working relationship.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:35 - 1:11:39)
Can I just add one thing on that? I agree with the fact that we need to have this community engagement process because I think that there's no doubt that there's going to be a lot of different pieces to this project and to expect that any kind of couple, one, two, three, four people that are involved from the town side or select board side is going to have all those different perspectives is unlikely, just human capacity-wise. So it's going to be really important for people that live really close by to have a role and a voice in this and for people that are kind of from further away as seeing this as kind of an amenity for the whole town.

There are going to be very particular issues. I know the next gentleman may have some particular close-in issues. I know, Mary, you will.

Others live very close by. There's going to be very particular things about parking and noise, et cetera, that we talked through before. We took notes.

I believe a lot of us took a lot of notes from last time. But keeping all those things alive and incorporating them into the design is going to be critical for this to be successful.

[Speaker 4] (1:11:41 - 1:11:41)
John?

[Speaker 11] (1:11:44 - 1:12:16)
All good comments. John Jantas, Precinct 4. Like Mary, I'm also an immediate abutter.

More of a clarification, I did speak at the last public comment on this. All three proposals, at least as presented, had surface parking. And whatever proposal eventually is selected by this board, is that going to be what moves forward as surface parking?

Or is there a possibility of a parking garage going up there? I was just curious on that point. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:16 - 1:13:07)
Mr. Chairman? Go ahead. That's a really great question.

So zoning allows a one-story parking structure if it needed it. All three finalists, actually of the seven, only one group proposed a parking structure. Of the three finalists, none of them proposed a parking structure.

And I believe one or more of them said at the public meetings that parking structure would be financially unviable and that there's no way they would ever build one. For a second, I put my hat on a little bit. I don't build hotels, but I know a little bit about building.

I do not believe that a privately funded parking garage is remotely viable. So I think you'll hear tonight, as my guests, a little bit more on it. But I think you can be confident that surface parking is the most likely result at the Hadley School.

But again, chime in, please, if others have different opinions or feelings.

[Speaker 5] (1:13:07 - 1:13:13)
All three of the final proposals, as you stated, do not have parking garages. So it's a good start.

[Speaker 9] (1:13:18 - 1:15:46)
Hi, I'm Ann Potts, 54 Aspen Road. I dialed into the last meeting and heard about the we had a bit of a discussion about participation in local elections. So with 13 percent of our citizenry voting in local elections, last week's meeting had 20 people dialing in.

I tried to peer around the room from teams to see how populated the room was. It was not. Today we have 21 people dialing in and, you know, not a full room.

Considering the money, the definitional level of this decision for this town, the fact that abutters are talking about not being involved, and we also had a comment about discourse. I see this as a unified whole. And I wonder why we're pulling this together as quickly as we are.

We have these developers. They are, Katie, you just spoke wonderfully about their enthusiasm for this project. I've been in business for a long time.

I have answered RFPs. I know that you do it on a wig and a prayer. And you don't know anything about what's actually going on on the other side of the table.

So once we get into this process, it's going to get really complicated. And I don't know why we're moving this quickly. Why not have this vote happen in May?

Give us a beat as a community to have more robust conversations, to actually invite others in, because we don't have a system or a culture in place where we're naturally showing up, which is work that we can do together. And I really, really would ask this august body, and I appreciate the time that you put into these kinds of work that you do, please, please, please, let's talk about it in May. There will be a town election before then.

Hopefully we can have more people involved in this process, because this is not enough involvement for a decision of this size.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:47 - 1:15:48)
Thank you, Ms. Potts.

[Speaker 9] (1:15:48 - 1:15:48)
Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:51 - 1:17:36)
So I appreciate it. And I'm actually looking at the RFP. I'm trying to pull up the RFP here.

And I'm going to do a defensive process not because of any reason except for the number of people that were involved in the process. Town meeting has voted multiple times on this project. And so we do live in a town where we've decided to have a representative town meeting, which means that when you go to the polls, you choose 324 people, 56 in each precinct, I think it is.

54. 54. I'm not good with math.

54 people in each precinct. And so this has actually gone before town meeting more times than Michonne went to town meeting and other projects went to town meeting. So it did.

And the first town meeting vote created a committee of in excess of 20 people, representatives of almost every single committee that has anything to do with buildings, land, ADA, environmental, et cetera, plus some other neighbors. Some of the neighbors that spoke tonight were on the committee. They then spent, I think, the next 18 months going through a public process, holding many public meetings, talking about the different possibilities for this building.

Out of that came three or four final choices. Before this process ever began, the school department was asked whether or not the school department had any school use for the building or were they intending to turn it over to the town after the new elementary school is open. And the response was the intention is to turn it over to the town, that the school does not need it, nor do they want to bear the financial responsibility of keeping it going.

So once we had the feedback from this committee, they presented in four different groups, I recall. And, Lori, if you're here, you're going to remember the groups better than I am.

[Speaker 24] (1:17:36 - 1:17:38)
Sorry, I was going to actually go and speak.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:39 - 1:17:48)
Great. That's fine. Lori is one of the neighbors that was also part of the reuse group.

So let me yield to you, Lori, because you're going to remember this better than me.

[Speaker 16] (1:17:48 - 1:19:49)
I want to cut you off, Peter. Again, I'm Lori Levin, 30 years plus as a commercial interior designer. My husband's an architect.

I volunteered for this project for obvious reasons. I live right next door to the building. Also, I am a passionate historic preservationist.

As Peter said, we spent many, many months working. There were 17 or 18 of us on the committee. We did a lot of research on each of the various use types that we were considering.

In the end, we prepared a report for the select board that is now available on the town website. We held our own public engagement. We had a meeting at the school where community members could come and give their feedback on the three options that we were asked to address by the select board.

I think about 50 people came to that. Our meetings typically had no public attendees, sometimes one or two. So this is a very long process.

It's not just coming about. And I know I keep saying, hey, what about the robocalls? I feel like sometimes we need to make people more aware that these things are happening.

But we were all very dedicated to this process. We all came from different backgrounds, a lot of really talented people on the committee, people that are involved in real estate, design, all different fields. Many of you know Janelle Cameron.

She was on the committee as well. I don't know if there's any others here tonight. But we were very dedicated to this process, put a lot of work into it.

And I don't want anyone to think that we just started talking about this because this has been going on. During COVID, this is what kept me busy and kept me sane, coming up with ideas for this project. So I want you to know that we have all been very dedicated to it.

And we had the citizens of the town in mind. I personally have compromised, I think, quite a bit, considering how this is going to impact my neighborhood. And I'm hoping that everyone else can do the same and hopefully learn more about the project.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:51 - 1:21:54)
I just want to share just a perspective. We're in the budget season. And so every year I've been talking about the difficulty of really making this budget work for a town.

And I've said the same thing at every town meeting over the last five years. Can't just cut our way out of the problems with our budget. We've got to grow our way.

I've had the former mayor of Gloucester here five years ago. We walked up and down Humphrey Street and we talked about how we could put a hotel in Swamps. I've taken pictures of the Salem Hotel.

And I've shared them with our finance committee and at financial summits. Because, you know, Swamps has some of the most extraordinary history with hotels. And I get change is difficult.

But we have been wrestling with how do we redevelop Vennon Square? How do we really look at Humphrey Street as a way that we can generate revenue to help pay for and balance the fiduciary responsibilities that we have? So from my perspective, it's not just a question of what do we do with an empty building?

Because, frankly, I worry about empty buildings. I worry about what would we do if we didn't bring in a team that could help us find a way to take that asset and turn it into an economic investment that would help continue to support many of the small businesses on Humphrey Street. Our small businesses need that investment.

And we need the jobs and we need the hotel-motel tax. So there's a lot of things here that we've been working on for years and years to try to address, not just what to do with the Hadley School, a building where my grandmother was a school nurse for many decades. And I hate to lose that, too.

Believe me, it's a beautiful piece of our history, but to have it really contribute to something bigger and broader is desperately needed. Doug?

[Speaker 5] (1:21:55 - 1:22:11)
Do you feel like you're getting your question answered? No. I mean, I think this is a ‑‑ I had a feeling you didn't.

And I think ‑‑ may I try to summarize what you're ‑‑ I want to recognize the amazing work of the Hadley Committee.

[Speaker 9] (1:22:12 - 1:23:29)
I filled out the survey. I was excited. I thought, this is great.

We're really getting involved. My kids went to Hadley. I was excited about it.

I showed up at the RFP meeting excited. I couldn't wait to hear. I am all about making this a better town, and I can't wait to see as we grow together and how we develop this community together.

What I'm saying is, as we're deciding on this marriage, let's take a minute and really think about it together, because there is no way that we can say with a clear voice, despite all of the hard work that individual committees have contributed, that we are getting a clear view of this with this level of participation. It's just not possible. We can see the bodies.

We can see the numbers. There might be people on the CCTV. I know we can't count them.

But it just ‑‑ it doesn't ‑‑ this moment is what I'm talking about. The March warrant is what I'm talking about. Thank you so much for everybody who's done everything that's led us to here.

Here really matters, and we've got to slow it down. That's what I'm talking about.

[Speaker 24] (1:23:30 - 1:23:31)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (1:23:34 - 1:25:08)
I guess all I'll say is that I think there are some people who may not have been tracking this or may not like where it's going and therefore wanted to slow it down. I have no idea whether or not that's you or not. But I know there are people that definitely would like to slow it down because they don't want it to become a hotel.

I have to say I think many people know I'm very empathetic to that. At the beginning I wanted this to be affordable housing. I have come around to this being the best solution for this location.

I'm very, very interested in us developing other affordable housing in town. There are other needs that came out of the Hadley reuse that we may need to address as well in town. This will be up to this board ultimately to decide on whether or not to move forward at this point.

As Peter has said, there's a lot of different steps in this process. The next step, any vote we take tonight, isn't the last vote. It's actually just the next step in the process about actually engaging with the developer, getting more into the details.

I won't pretend like I understand all of the nuances of it like others do, but this is a process. There's going to still be a lot of opportunity for input. It may be a change, of course, but you've got to start down a path in order to figure out whether or not this is really the long-term partner.

There are going to be more opportunities for people to weigh in. Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 20] (1:25:08 - 1:25:55)
Kelly Kruger, Supreme Court, Precinct 3, I think. I just wanted to share an observation from the three remaining developers. The Drew Company is the only one that I think actually portrayed community.

It had pictures that had families in it. It was focused on fitting into the space, keeping the tradition of the Hadley School, and the depiction of even keeping OYO out front, which my kids love to go to, rather than versions that showed tearing down and replacing with other amenities. I think that that really spoke to me as some place that is focused on working with the community and keeping it as a place where community members will use it in addition to their hotel guests.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:55 - 1:27:17)
Thank you, Kelly. Thanks, Kelly. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to use this moment to just, again, the interest of bringing people. Bringing people. Am I good? Sorry.

Just kind of backfill some information on it. Of the three proposals, only one proposal seeks to use and reuse the historic portion and the annex, and that's the Clearview proposal. One proposal seeks to, actually two proposals seek to demolish the annex and build a new building where the annex approximately is.

And one proposal, and only one proposal proposed potentially as an option, acquiring additional property along Humphrey Street, specifically the OYO property. I don't know the address, so I apologize. That building and possibly incorporating that as event space into their proposal.

And that was the Nanowet group. But that was an option. That was a variation.

So I just wanted to provide that, throw that out there, since Kelly just had mentioned those kind of projects on it. Maura, before you say something, can I say something? Do I have a choice, Peter?

Well, you're my neighbor, so I can come tomorrow and say it. But you're not. Earlier you said I feel like a lunatic.

You're not. You've actually been the one.

[Speaker 7] (1:27:17 - 1:27:18)
No, I know I'm not a lunatic.

[Speaker 9] (1:27:19 - 1:27:21)
I was just trying to get everybody to stay.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:21 - 1:27:40)
But I also want to validate the fact that you've been the one consistent person in terms of your opinions and your feelings. But I do appreciate I was viewing the notes after the last meeting. You have said, despite your underlying feelings about the proposals, you've given us ideas to move forward to make sure that if this does move forward, we're at least addressing some very reasonable thoughts.

So thank you for that.

[Speaker 7] (1:27:43 - 1:33:31)
Laurie, where are you? I'm sorry. I am Janelle.

I listened to absolutely every, and I was on most of them. Yes, I was on. I was your lunatic.

And I have been saying since Connor went to kindergarten that I am going to chain myself to this building, and there's no way that we're going to, you know, let Paradise or Groom or anybody else get a hold of it and tear the damn thing down. So I am glad that that's happening. But I have to say that years ago when we passed that it would not be market rate housing, I felt very hopeful, Peter, by you, truthfully, that that would mean that it would be something more meaningful to the town.

And I understand the finances. I get that, you know, people need to pay the bills, that we, our town needs to pay the bills. But we are enduring a loss of field space and playground space and swing swings and the history of that stone wall, all of those things are at risk and in jeopardy.

And I think that where the gap has been is, has been when the select board decided out of the three options, that's where there was little to no communication to anybody in town to say come and listen, voice our opinions. So this is where my little rant here will be, the process of communicating and the process of getting the word out is woefully broken. And I have been shunting about this for the last 10 months.

I'm exhausted coming to meeting after meeting, pressing politely my points, that last May's town meeting did not represent responsible behavior or support representative democracy effectively. It was selective information shared with town meeting, elected members picking and choosing components of a pinnacle report to craft an article that did not well represent their detailed comprehensive report, outlining how Lynn Scott park was used by the town. Outstanding is how a community space that was left off the RFP.

So none of the three finalists outlined a specific dedicated room to be used for town and community members, though it was passed at town meeting. I would like an answer tonight as other comments have chosen to be responded to at previous meetings, yet not this point that I have spoken about at least a dozen times. I will reiterate my disappointment with the loss of this municipal property.

The process of how we begin new projects should be set. It should have a standard. It's the word in the industry.

And it is not that would have avoided the back and forth at the last town meet at the last select board meeting. And some of the snarky behavior that I found deplorable. And our teenagers should not be watching that.

It was just a poor, poor example of how adults should be behaving. Because unlike what has been said in the past, people don't complain about process when they don't like the outcome. That has been said, and it was said again at last select board meeting, Process here is fractured and it needs a significant repair.

I'd like you to think about adopting, splitting the 40 in the pinnacle report, the 60 in the RFP and also in town meeting article to say 50. Maybe that would lessen some of the footprint that this is going to really jeopardize the community. Traffic will be a problem.

200 people coming in for a wedding. You have to visualize and think it all through. And I really do hope you take my repeated comments about process and how we get information out to people.

Because as we can tell, we're kind of a one issue world. You know, if one issue is going to bring everybody out and they can't stay for the other 10, you know, I don't know what the solution to that is. But I do know that at times when we've pushed out information through this, I'm calling it red nose.

It's not red nose. Code red. Code red just makes me think of a hospital.

But when we push that information out, it moves the nugget a little bit. We get some people. So, you know, I was the first person complaining to my neighbor about Parent Square in August.

And I thought, oh, God, just one more thing that isn't going to work because the schools are not providing enough information to us. I'm so glad to be wrong because it's working. We're getting information from schools.

So if we are over communicating to people, I think that's our only hope.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:32 - 1:33:33)
Thank you, Ms. Lowe. Thank you, Paul.

[Speaker 13] (1:33:36 - 1:35:37)
Thank you, Paul. Hello. Louis Chisoulo, 48 Farragut Road.

I just zoomed down here because I've been waiting on hold and no one's let me in the room yet. So I've zoomed here from my work to get to speak. Just want to speak quickly on Hadley.

>>:OK. I brought up at the last meeting when I was talking to the developers, one of the things was I think it might have been the first thing I found concerning was that it seemed like he was already having preliminary discussions with the property in front of him where Froyo is and the other two. I found that, I mean, that's biting off, you know, more than what was they're supposed to be doing, which is for the building itself.

And then on top of that, he opened up a whole can of worms by talking about Anthony's and that property. And that property, we already had great discussions on about stuff for the community and all that. And he opened up a can of worms by talking about what to do there.

And then you could slowly hear the other two developers that came up. They were like, oh, well, we didn't know we could do that. I would love to do something with that.

I'm just saying, you know, I'm in favor of something to be done, yeah, with the school or a hotel that goes there. But, you know, we're now going down a slippery slope that our developers seem like that they're, you know, trying to get a little bit more and then a little bit more. And I mean, this is what happens with developers, you know.

Sean, I know you don't like when I say it, but this is what happened in Boston, you know, with a lot of places, you know. Yeah, I'm from Boston, but I've seen a lot of things happen in small communities. I grew up in the north end.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:37 - 1:35:39)
>>:I had nothing against Boston.

[Speaker 13] (1:35:39 - 1:36:15)
So, I mean, I've seen it happen. And when developers come in, this is what happens. They try and get a little bit more and a little bit more and a little bit more.

So I'm asking the select board, be stern, be, you know, and be solid when it comes to, hey, it's the Hadley school. That's it. Not the other properties, not Anthony's Pier 4, just to Hadley.

All that other stuff is for the community, and we'll talk about it then. Thank you. >>:Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. >>:Now I got to go home because I couldn't get in. All right. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:16 - 1:37:27)
>>:Mr. Chairman, can I, again, I just, I know I'll be repeating last week, but since we have a different audience here, I want to just appreciate the comments that were just made. The two things on Hawthorne, nothing, this board can't do anything that implicates Hawthorne. So nothing this board will vote will with this project.

Town meeting, it's with town meeting. I think a very large number of this board committed to public space being the Hawthorne. And so these proposals, and I think you'll hear tonight, I assume you'll hear tonight, that Hawthorne is not on the table for conversation.

Secondly, Linscott Park, which I also made reference to last meeting. Linscott Park is subject to a conservation restriction. There is nothing that we, this board can do to allow commercialization of Linscott Park or development of Linscott Park.

So it's not going to happen. That actually conservation restriction is controlled by different bodies in the select board. So that, too, there's one proposal that actually showed event space.

It's an overstatement. Maybe outdoor tables on a terrace to use it for weddings. You know, respectfully to that idea, that idea can't be on the table because that space is actually statutorily restricted.

So I just want to put that out there.

[Speaker 15] (1:37:28 - 1:39:20)
>>:Sorry, I'm back again. Mike Kelleher, Precinct 4. I haven't been involved, and I apologize.

The town has really gotten me involved lately. You guys have a lot going on, and I really appreciate all your time. I've moved here.

I think this is a tremendous town. It's where I'd love to stay. And, you know, my two daughters are growing up and really adjusting well to the school system.

But I think it's extremely short-sighted to push a project of this magnitude through in this town in a special meeting that's never been done before. Because I think it's very... I think Mrs. Potts said some great comments before I was listening on the phone. I left, but unfortunately, I came back. I'm going to try and get more involved in town. But...

And I think the woman in the... Sorry, I missed your name. That's your...

Peter's neighbor. I think she... >>:Peter is my neighbor.

>>:OK, sure. Perfect. But I think she made some great points as well.

And I think that the town needs to have a better discussion. And I found it really insulting that... No offense, Peter's neighbor, but I didn't have my stopwatch on, but I walked in and she got way more than two minutes.

And other people, I see the board cut off immediately. So I just think that is more of a practice that I think this town really needs to look at everything and just move forward. Because I think...

Honestly, I think the hotel should be on the Hawthorne property. And I think the parking... A parking garage with a rooftop bar where Hadley is would preserve some of the structure would be the ideal way to go.

And we could actually maximize what our town could do. But it's going to take time. And I feel like any rush is just more the mechanisms of what I've seen the select board become.

And I just am disgusted. And I think the town deserves better. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:23 - 1:39:50)
>>:Mr. Chairman, I've heard a couple of times people talk about a special meeting. I don't know. I just want to clarify.

The March special town meeting has zero, literally zero Hadley-related topics on it. So if anybody was referring to... >>:Four to six percent.

>>:I'm just... I just wanted to make sure. If anybody was referring to the special town meeting that's coming up on March 11th...

>>:11th. >>:On 11th, there is nothing having to do with the Hadley on that town meeting warrant. So just in case people thought there was.

[Speaker 19] (1:39:53 - 1:40:17)
>>:54 Aspen Road. Former planning board member, former town meeting member, up for reelection this year. One just quick question of clarification I had was, is there...

Do we know what the NPV of a brown lease is versus them buying it and paying taxes every year? And like inflation, you know, does it go up? Is it the same amount or is it different?

I don't know if that's been made clear.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:18 - 1:41:31)
>>:Yeah, let me... Mr. Chairman, is that OK? So because we're...

I'm going to give you a general answer. And that's just because tonight, if we vote to designate a developer, it will allow us to enter negotiations. For that reason, we have not had public conversations about the financial proposals just because it would obviously undercut the negotiation.

But let me just answer this simply, which is all the proponents that have proposed a ground lease have proposed a ground lease that is payable over all the years of the ground lease. So therefore, if it's a 99-year ground lease, they pay rent for 99 years as opposed to... And I'm just saying it to compare what the Michon School was.

So the Michon School paid one ground rent payment in year one. And so they didn't... Years two through 99 didn't have to.

But their payment in year one was a big payment, whereas an annual rent would have been a small payment. So just to... I'm giving you a general answer.

I'm not specifically, but I just want to let you know that they have proposed it, and that would be an ongoing stream. And I think it's safe to assume that that stream would need to take in consideration time. And so that stream would likely increase over time.

[Speaker 19] (1:41:31 - 1:42:50)
Right. And we did do an NPV. Okay.

And I did do some research to try and figure out how the 60 rooms was come about. And I might be wrong, but it looked like it was presented to the planning board by the town council with the 60 rooms on it, and it was in the appendix. And I don't know if it was...

And, you know, now seeing the size of the hotel, the way it's going to be with the parking, it seems like the need for... The town's need for parking is actually going to be impacted negatively by the hotel instead of positively. So I would propose in the long lines of what Moira said, but instead of doing 50 rooms, doing a 40 room with a 20...

With a special permit or something where you need to have like a little bit more trade-offs, it'll help your negotiations. And it won't make it so that we're giving up everything before the negotiations happen. So that would be my proposal for that.

And I just don't... I think a lot of people are feeling like they're going to lose leverage if they... If this passes as it is.

So that's the point I want to make. So my proposal is 40 rooms with like a special permit or some type of, you know, a way to horse trade it so that we could say, hey, you know, we need something over here, we need something over there, like where they can... So that would be the two things.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 12] (1:42:58 - 1:43:01)
I'm Precinct 4, another direct-to-butter on Reddington Street.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:03 - 1:43:03)
What's your name, sir?

[Speaker 12] (1:43:04 - 1:43:05)
Mark Chase, sorry.

[Speaker 24] (1:43:05 - 1:43:06)
Thank you.

[Speaker 12] (1:43:06 - 1:45:43)
So, you know, I usually look at this from the standpoint of a developer, developer's architect. And one of the things we talk about the most at the front end is the budget, the first costs. This is important to design in some cases, unfortunately.

And I saw, I think, a $30.4 million proposed hard cost construction proposal in one of the... I think it was the Dewar report. That may be a good number.

You know, what I find a lot, especially these days in supply chain problems, is it's worth 5%, 5% low. It comes in 10% high, 15% high or something like that. And then the value of engineering ensues, which is just a euphemism, you know, for cutting all the costs and quality out.

So if that were to happen, a town, a privately funded project, have any leverage to write in certain design guidelines to establish certain minimum standards of quality so that the landscape design isn't, you know, the density isn't cheapened. Instead of 24 trees, we get five saplings or something like that. You know, I think the windows are very important.

There's good windows, there's good divided light, residential windows, and then there's the cheapest commercial window you can get from the Hampton Inn. We're going to get that because we can't control the cost. So the developer says we're going to walk.

You can't force us to spend more money than the value of our construction loan, whether it's $30.4 billion or some other value. I guess B, the question B is do we still have the right to reject the design if it's, as of rights, conform to the state building code and the zoning ordinances. It's not guilty of anything except being ugly.

Can we say, can we reject it, or are we in legal problems with the developer because we're spending somebody else's money, it's not our money. Yep. And I guess C, is there an option to, like the architect probably wouldn't want to do this because it's more work, to build the value engineering into different options for room numbers, like price the 40 as a true boutique hotel with high quality and also do a 60, a C or a 50, and see if any of those options we can select, or is the developer's financial calculus such that, sorry, we can only do 60, that's the only thing that works for us. Are any of those things options in the interest of just maintaining a high level of quality for the project, which isn't a butter, I think about it a little bit differently now.

It's not an abstraction to me anymore. It's like real and inevitable, you know, the school is leaving, it's just like inevitable and real, it's not abstract. So, I mean, do we even have the leverage to just back out if the developer can't afford it?

Do we have a cruciating asset in the hotel? Have we lost some of our leverage with them?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:44 - 1:52:31)
Mr. Chairman, all good questions, Mark. Let me try and address, without preempting the conversation this board's going to engage with when we're concluding, when we're done with public comment here, because a lot of those questions I think you'll hear, and I assume you'll hear my opinion. I'm trying to not give too much opinion right now until the board has a conversation.

But the following, with the help of Pinnacle and others, we've stressed test costs. I will tell you in the three finalists, the costs aren't the same on a per square foot basis or a per room basis, and that caused us to do more diligence to understand why proposal one, I'm just randomly picking numbers, a proposal has one cost and another proposal has other costs. Two, in terms of design control, to not repeat entirely what I said earlier, because this is a public process, we actually have greater controls than if it was a private process.

And that control is two-fold. Number one, there's an extra layer of design review, which is with the town before it ever gets to the zoning board. A private applicant can file whatever they want with the zoning board.

No one reviews it, no one says it's okay beforehand. Here there's a process for that. And I think Mary DiCillo suggested a pretty good idea about that process.

So there will be contractual limitations as to what they can do because of that process. So it's not just the zoning controls, which you can go back to zoning at a future date and seek to review. Here there will be contractual controls saying you've said you're going to do this, and let's talk about trees.

I'm just going to use your example since you did it, which is you said you were going to plant 24 six-inch caliper, you know, Norway maples. Well, something, sorry, something native, I'm thinking of the wrong tree. The native, whatever the equivalent native is, you're going to do it.

And so those are things that actually, again, I would point to them. We can bring that forward, the Michon documents of how we did it with Michon. The Michon documents actually have attached to their approval by the select board detailed plans, right?

So it's not just a concept. It's fully schematic plan to kind of use your jargon, schematic plans, early plans, but pretty detailed. And then any material changes from those detailed plans, they needed to come back to the select board to get additional design approval on.

In terms of our ability to, let me say one more thing. I think you're going to, foreshadowing the conversation, my conversation, it was a little bit here is, when we think about what is going to be built, I think there, I have thought about it in two ways. And I've heard, you know, Katie Phelan took part in the interviews of the seven with us.

And so I've heard Katie's questions as well. There's really two projects in one, one that happens over, let's just say a two, three year period, which is developing, building the building. And then there's one that lasts for 99 years, right?

Which is the operating of a hotel. And so how do you assess the merits of proposals for both things and leave comfortable with those things? I will tell you that I build buildings, but I haven't a clue about how to operate a hotel, right?

So I will tell you that building a building, I'm going to tell you is easier than operating a successful hotel. So I'm just foreshadowing. When you hear me talk, I'm going to tell you I, between the two, I put more weight on who had a proven track record with a specific product and who was saying that they were going to bring that product to our town because that was the best way to share with the community and myself first, but the community to be able to say this, you can literally go to an example of their work product and see what they're proposing because they are telling us that's what they're going to do here. And to me, that was really important because that speaks to quality.

It speaks to brand. There were a couple of proposals that hadn't identified what brand they weren't. And again, maybe early, I'm not casting judgment on it, but in terms of where I got my comfort and I suspect you'll hear some of that.

So that's really important as well. And I think for me, the selection criteria is the last thing, which is I'm just going to take this time to just talk about scoring for a second, Mark, because it's important to know. I just want to share the topics that all seven proposals were scored not only by the entire select board, but they were scored by staff and they are scored by Pinnacle.

And just to share with you what the categories were, the RFP itself required us to score based on thoroughness of the offer, their vision, the relevant experiences, their financial resources, willingness and parameters of flexibility, operator qualifications, confidence to execute and sustainability and green initiatives were the specific RFP things that we had agreed. In addition to that, thanks to Pinnacle, we actually were provided an additional scorecard that Pinnacle wanted us to focus on. And again, Pinnacle was focusing probably, if I was to say, airing more on the operation side, right?

Who are you doing business with for the next foreseeable future so that you can predict what kind of quality that you're bringing and what it is that you're bringing to town. And so the topics there are development capability and experience. And then there's four or five subsets under that independent boutique hotel experience.

And then there's four or five categories under that general company issues and background. And there's four or five, actually six or seven categories there. Management items, assurance of viability for ongoing concerns.

Then there's a number of items there. And then ability to execute and support the project. And then in addition, and I think importantly to things you guys talked about, was community involvement, right?

And their commitment to community involvement. So as I said, every, all seven, and speaking to whoever was speaking earlier about how the three came down, it was the recommendation of Pinnacle that we attempt to bring a smaller group before we ask them to come to Swampscott and be interviewed. It was made easier in the fact, and I say this not lightly, the top three of the seven was unanimous of every single person that graded them.

I'm not going to speak about who was one, two, and three, but to let you know that every single select board member, town staff, and Pinnacle all rated the seven. The first three were the, if you will, in varying orders, but all three were the same. And that actually gave Pinnacle and everybody a clear sense that there was a dividing line, right?

All really good proposals and really appreciate it, and really exciting to have the proposals. But I do want to share with the fact that it was unanimous across all the report grading, and anybody correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think I'm wrong, I think I'm 100% right on this, that all the three proposals that we're talking about tonight, and that's where we got the confidence to say there's clearly three proposals that we need to seriously consider, not seven proposals, which is how we got to where we are standing tonight. But I think you're going to hear more about some of your questions in a few minutes.

I'm sorry for being long.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:33 - 1:52:34)
Sir?

[Speaker 14] (1:52:36 - 1:54:14)
Mike Bryson, Precinct 4. I live directly next door to the Hadley School property. The chain link fence on one side is the playground, on the other side is my property.

It sounds a lot like we really love and respect Pinnacle, and that we've really listened to them on virtually everything they've said except 40 rooms. I don't know why we don't take their word there, and we've let the developers add another 50% to the number of rooms. From 40 to 60 is 20 rooms, and that's 50% of Pinnacle's number.

And I just I know developers want and need to make money, and I know it's more money for the town ultimately, but I don't it just doesn't sound like a boutique hotel anymore when you get 60 rooms and two or three restaurants and bars and a swimming pool and and and and. So I just hope there's some consideration to rethink our devotion to Pinnacle and listen to what they say about the number of rooms.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:14 - 1:55:18)
Thanks. Mr. Chairman, can I? The great question, Michael, I think really helpful questions.

Error statements. Let me talk about Pinnacle. And so Pinnacle's assignment was in fairness to Pinnacle, and I'm happy to go into places where we disagree with Pinnacle as well, but was to take the historic portion of the building only because that in the RFP, every respondent had to keep the historic portion and town meeting, consistent with town meeting approval, had to keep the historic portion.

The annex, which was built a number of years later, which is in a different state of repair. They didn't have to. So Pinnacle's feasibility study was based upon merely how many units you can fit in the historic portion of the building.

So that was actually a exercise in space as opposed to market dynamics here. But I hear you. I think, again, we're going to get to hear from others besides me and us and you tonight just in terms.

I think you're going to hear I'm pretty confident you're going to hear that it's not and, and, and, and. I think you're going to hear some ideas. So don't put me wrong.

[Speaker 6] (1:55:18 - 1:55:27)
Can I just ask a quick question? Michael, at the last meeting, did you say which of the three that you were in favor of? No.

You didn't? Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:28 - 1:55:29)
Do you want to?

[Speaker 2] (1:55:29 - 1:55:30)
I was going to say, do you want to next?

[Speaker 14] (1:55:33 - 1:56:19)
You know, because of where I am, I'm opposed to the hotel, but I live in reality. I know it's going to happen. So whoever comes up with the idea, we can hear you on TV, whoever comes up with the fewest rooms and the, you know, I'm looking at the at the parking lot out my window.

So I do whoever can reduce all of that and maybe try to keep some property value instead of, you know, what we'll be sacrificing because we're directly next door to the parking lot. That's what that's who I would favor. Thank you.

[Speaker 7] (1:56:23 - 1:57:08)
Two quick things. I'd really like my question answered. Lots of other people did get their question answered.

I'll repeat it. But I guess just quickly to Michael's point. I think last time I said, you know, the do the least harm to the community would be would be great.

But this is really just forgetting about the community members. So the community space. I want it answered and it's squirrely and it's been avoided and it wasn't put in and it was intentional and I'd like to know why and I'd like to know where we go from here.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:08 - 1:57:37)
Mr. Chairman, it's actually written in our zoning and so our zoning requires it. So there's nothing that the RFP can do to eliminate it and there's nothing that the developer could do to eliminate it as well. So it's in the zoning for the underlying district that Tom meeting passed.

So no, I don't think anybody was purposely. We again haven't had conversations about any of those details because we haven't had public conversation, but it is in the zoning. So that's something that they will have to comply with.

The zoning was made available to all of them.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:41 - 1:57:55)
Okay, open it up for comments questions from from the board discussion. Doug, you look like you're you have something to say always Doug tonight, David.

[Speaker 6] (1:57:55 - 1:57:57)
Yeah. No, I'm happy. Excuse me.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:59 - 1:58:04)
Excuse me, please. I'll ma'am. Thank you.

[Speaker 21] (1:58:08 - 1:59:01)
Yes, Cameron town meeting member precinct 3 and recently retired Hadley school administrative assistant. 2018 Mary Ellen, but thank you. But in my one I'd missed the last few minutes because I was out of town.

So I just know when we went to some meetings in the fall, I had mentioned about the playground because it's all about the kids and you said it comes back to you before anything decided. Are you going to keep a playground there for the kids because that was one of the things on the Hadley reuse committee. We talked about as well as we the three proposals had them taken down the annex because for people that don't go to Hadley, there's actually four floors on one side of the building and three in the other.

So it's not like evenly spaced. You couldn't walk from one side of the building to the other and be in the same level and stuff. So just a couple little things as mother Cameron wants to be concerned about David, you know, great question.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:01 - 1:59:07)
Let us have some conversation and maybe you'll hear some feedback about that. Again. I just I can't answer it myself.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:07 - 2:00:16)
So I just got a Okay. Well, we I can start there because I brought that up multiple times. I know that that playground is very well used by all age groups.

My kids included where they're all the time. We have asked if the manufacturer of that equipment we have asked the manufacturer of that equipment if the equipment was moved would we be able to put it somewhere else and it would still be usable and reliable and the answer was yes. So we in the public process and conversation if the playground is not going to happen on that space.

We have I have begun. I mean, we have had conversations about what other very close relationship to that space would have viable options for that playground or a similar size playground that would serve the same members of the community. So if it could not be on that footprint where very close to that footprint could it be and still be servicing that neighborhood and I will just echo don't want to have happened.

[Speaker 21] (2:00:16 - 2:00:28)
What happened to Michonne? You know what I mean? They lost their whole thing and then it was like one side of the town against the other for playgrounds and they worked hard on that.

So you just let's be fair. Yep.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:31 - 2:03:44)
I want to echo some of the things that Peter sort of alluded to when he was answering some of the questions one of them being I thought a lot about the conversations that were had. I interviewed all seven of the participants. I have read many community feedback.

There have been questions by the select board that I didn't think of that. I'm thoughtful in the responses that were given back by each of the respondents and the one thing I hearken back to is how meaningful this space is to us to me to you all to all the members of this board and how do we get a developer to appreciate that meaning to have the same game as I say and the thing is for a developer. You've all made the point.

It's very difficult for that to happen, but for an operator, it's different. They have to be here. This is a long-term commitment.

And so when I think about you know at first when Drew presented I was I very well received their ideas of community participation and opening up those spaces on the bottom floor to all the community progress projects to the farmers market being sort of coming across the road and being involved with the hotel and but what worries me or I should say in the positive what I feel is a better attribute is an RFP which has a developer putting their name on the operations going forward somebody who's not just going to get up and leave if it's not going their way somebody who has a reputation to maintain and uphold that to me does level set us this community with our partner because now their reputation is on the line just like our community's reputation is on the line.

So to me when I think about making an option there were wonderful things that all of them presented there were things that I would like to cherry pick right from each of them and the great part is we can we can say to whomever we pick we really loved this about this other proposal. Does it work with you? You know, why doesn't it work with you?

How can we get it to work with you? This is the prioritization of the community. Let's understand that that's our position.

So to me, I think Clearview putting their name on a product and living in our community for the next 99 years. I feel like it is really important to level set the playing field between what we serve to gain and what we are giving because we are giving something here right? And so we need to make sure that they feel like they're giving us something for a gain too.

And I think that putting their name on a building, putting their brand on a building that will live on for the next 50, 60, 70 years that does that. That's my two cents about that piece.

[Speaker 20] (2:03:44 - 2:03:44)
Thanks Katie.

[Speaker 4] (2:03:48 - 2:09:23)
I'm happy to I'm happy to speak. So, no, I mean, I'm very glad that we were able to have this, you know, have these opportunities to really sit down and listen to the public. And, you know, before I get into my comments, Lori, I want to thank you for, you know, for serving on the Hadley Reuse Committee.

It was and in addition to your, you know, the 20 some odd individuals, it was a lot of work. I tried to attend as many of those virtual sessions as possible over the course of 18 months. I was there in Linscott Park as we're still in COVID.

And, you know, we're wearing masks and we're trying to we're trying to give presentations. And it was a very robust turnout and a very long process. So thank you, Katie and Peter.

Thank you for your, you know, for your work as well. And certainly thank you to professional staff as well. I think at the start of this process, if we would have if we would have ever if we would have dreamt that we would have received three responses to the RFPs of the Caliber, of NoAnit, the Drew Companies and Adelimar, you know, we would have been we would have been happy with one.

But we got three in addition to four other four other respondents. You know, I'll tell you, you know, there are certainly, you know, certainly positives for every for every one of the three finalists looking at NoAnit. NoAnit was the developer of an incredible hotel, Raffles, in downtown Boston.

It's beautiful. I think Condé Nast rented it, rated it maybe the second best hotel in the United States. It's in Boston.

And that developer responded to an RFP in Swampskip. That's that's awesome. You know, but looking at the scale of what they're of what our residents want, listening to that public feedback and that public and those public comments for the last several meetings, you know, really got me thinking, you know, is that most appropriate in our town?

You know, so that really that really took me away from NoAnit. Nothing against, you know, those guys, you know, that that group. I thought they had an incredible vision.

I thought they are certainly capable and they've proven it. I just think what works in Boston doesn't work in our little quaint seaside town. You know, the Drew Companies, again, to have someone the caliber of, you know, the John Drew presenting in B129 is awesome.

I mean, he's building or built a $475 million hotel in downtown Atlanta. You know, so I and, you know, they're certainly financially capable and and very and very real and they sat and they responded to our to our questions. They really made a top-notch presentation.

But, you know, I so I've been going back and forth with, you know, with with my two finalists over the course of the last few few weeks, few days, and it really hit home to me yesterday. So yesterday I took a trip to West Hartford. I wanted to see one of these.

I wanted to see the Delamar Hotel. It was a road trip, admit it. It was a road trip.

Who was your passenger? Yeah, so I went with Peter and we we got to see we got to see Delamar West Hartford. We got to see it in action.

It was unannounced. We drove early in the morning. Many coffees were consumed and and we got there and it felt like home.

It did. It felt it felt warm. It felt welcoming, you know, there were there were young kids that were in the hotel.

They were running around. It wasn't it wasn't the stuffy space. It really had that sense of place within that West Hartford community and it and if Delamar is to be selected to construct the hotel in Swampskate, I believe that's going to create our sense of place.

This was a solid four-star hotel. It was it was built from the ground up. You know, I really liked the presentation from from Delamar and the fact that you know, we're talking about you know, reducing our carbon footprint and being more green and environmentally friendly and the complete and from a historic preservation perspective the fact that they're using they're going to use the entirety of the historic main Hadley structure as well as the annex certainly spoke to me as well.

So I I thought I thought that you know, the fact that we had three incredible opportunities was was something that that we that we can you know that we can certainly enjoy but I to me the choice is clear choices choice for me is Delamar and having seen that in action and and seen that operation and envisioned that envisioned moving that operation from West Hartford into Swampskate is something that I think the community is certainly is certainly going to be happy with the end result. My two cents.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:25 - 2:11:01)
So I'll add my two cents, but I'm going to try to make it a little bit shorter only because I agree with everything that Katie has said and everything that everybody else has said in this room. I mean, unfortunately not many people turn out and get involved and we are left with five individuals to sit at a table and to make some big decisions, but I will tell you that during this time. I've had to spend enormous amounts of time reading all of these proposals reading them over and over and over and then following meetings going and knocking on doors making phone calls and asking people.

Have you looked at it? What's your opinion and after all that research for me my my decision my vote will be for Delamar based on many things that David has brought up and Katie's brought up. It's to me.

It's a operation operational advantage of being a family business that is in the hotel business. I did feel that after talking to them. They were very focused on the community.

You know, that's something they say. I mean, I have a background in sales. I I say a lot of things too.

So but hopefully that hopefully my gut feeling was we were really fortunate to get seven incredible RFPs and then to get down to three. It was it was pretty challenging, but my vote will be for the for the Delamar and I think that would be in the best interest of the community.

[Speaker 4] (2:11:03 - 2:11:05)
Thank you, Mary Ellen Douglas.

[Speaker 5] (2:11:08 - 2:14:39)
I agree and I don't need to repeat a lot of it just hit some of the highlights and then I just really want to emphasize again that this is one more stop on a long process and it's going to be up to all of us and anyone else that you can bring into the conversation because I feel like actually relatively speaking there have been a lot of people involved in this process with you go all the way back to reuse and through last town meeting and through the many meetings we've had the open meetings Etc. I don't think we're doing too bad.

We could always do much much better in that regard, but the it's really going to get more and more important now that we continue because I think once you kind of get in the room and you're trying to negotiate a deal the inclination is to kind of close down because you're trying to close things down and we're going to have to fight that and make sure that we're continuing to kind of breathe air into that and make sure that we're having broader input into what the decisions are. We have to figure out how that process happens in a way that respects the fact that you're having a negotiation, but also the respects the fact that this is in the midst of our community and we're the people that are going to have to live with it.

So the things that are really important to me about clear view are the fact that it does really really respect in a very deep way. Remember he had his book his history book. He walked around the Olmstead district really really appreciated this area appreciated the building for what it is and they wanted to work with it.

They're not tearing down part of it. It really kind of building on that. Yes.

I love the environmental aspects of what they proposed and that will be important to me going forward that we kind of maximize that the I did have concerns. You know some people say as a pro or con they're the one if you may recall that didn't actually identify their architect yet. So that's kind of a to do.

That's going to be very important. But they weren't trying to do anything brand new and fancy. So that was maybe a reason why that wasn't so critical at this point for them.

But I just want to emphasize and kind of feedback to people because I know this is you know the overarching theme of tonight or in general is kind of hearing people and being responsive. And I just want to kind of feedback some of those things the advisory committee the community room the new place for the playground that we have to make sure that this is an ongoing operation that's really responsive to our community and survives. What about the noise from construction talking to the neighbors light and sound pollution traffic transportation to the train.

You know there's on and on and on. You all have kind of given us this feedback. It's not flying into thin air.

So I want to try to kind of provide a little bit of reassurance. It doesn't mean at the end of the day everyone's not going to love every single piece of this right. Absolutely not going to happen.

But I do believe that continuing to kind of engage in this process and talking and giving feedback is going to continue to make this project as best they can possibly be for us. And I do think that clear view is a good ticket for us to start with and to us to start a negotiation with and to test that out and see how that plays out for us and make sure what they sold is actually what they can deliver. Thanks Doug.

[Speaker 2] (2:14:40 - 2:16:04)
I just felt with one thing that Doug said real quick about the architect because I meant to mention that when I spoke about clear view. At first I did foresee that as a negative because it felt like the other folks came to the table like almost more prepared. But when I stepped back I thought well maybe they want to know us before they put somebody on us right.

Maybe they want to understand. And he did do his historical homework but present day homework like who who are the community members coming into this space. What are they using it for.

What do they want it for. What do the neighbors want it to look like. Listening and having those conversations before they just say this is our architect.

This is what they do. This is what we're going to do here. And I sort of felt like in a way I viewed it as a benefit for them to say OK let's take the time and energy get to know these guys before we just say this is who we use because I think I believe they said we've used multiple architects for multiple projects.

And again I didn't view that as a red flag because it felt true to what they were saying about coming into a community and integrating into a community and said and yes Delamar is a brand right. And they have to be strong in their branding and be themselves. But they are themselves in a community not in a vacuum.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:06 - 2:16:39)
I agree. And I just one other thing that you reminded me of Katie is that by them actually kind of working with the building envelope as it is basically that's something we're all used to. We're all comfortable with that.

And so they haven't in some ways pushed us to what maybe the possibilities are beyond that. But we also kind of know more generally speaking the frame of what we're getting. And that doesn't kind of lead to such a big risk for you know taking a big swing and maybe missing.

[Speaker 4] (2:16:41 - 2:16:45)
The town administrator has asked to to make a few a few comments.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:45 - 2:16:50)
Yeah. After the board actually after we're done after we're done deliberating.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:51 - 2:21:51)
Yeah I agree. I mean I I appreciate the feedback. I want to get into some nitty gritty about things that we liked or didn't like.

But we didn't know what would be successful. Right. And so the market is giving us feedback on this.

And I think the fact that Delamar came back and used the existing building both historic and annexes is really meaningful to me. It's not going to be easy because I think I can't remember who said they they don't align the buildings and so you have elevator issues and stuff like that. But wonderful architects mark you know and you know we'll we'll solve those things and we'll have to figure those details out.

But I think that meant a lot because it's familiar and we know it. So to me that's the development right. That's the development side I was talking about which is it's there's a lot of details obviously that need to be worked out.

I would I remember the Michonne school before it became senior living and Michonne school now and if you just look at the historic portion and if you can remember what it was before they redid it and you remember the windows or the lack of windows because of the years of it being there. Hadley there's more windows covered than not at the Hadley for example. Right.

And just imagine those same windows which were good historically significant windows put back into the Hadley instead of having a block wall on the gym glass light block wall on the gym which was put there so we didn't break windows anymore. You end up having windows again and the building doesn't have its back on the town that actually becomes a front of sorts to just be there and that's all familiar right. And they don't have an architect and I don't know what their ideas are but because they're looking to reuse the buildings those are just natural things that are calming to me operationally.

I look at I think I wasn't convicted either way until Sunday to David's point and David and I did take a trip down very early and we're lucky to be able to find someone there to give us a tour and show us it. It's a contained operation. It is not a sprawling operation.

There is no pool there right. There's one restaurant that has a bar in it. They have a spa service but it wasn't big.

I mean I don't know anything about spa services but it didn't seem big but it was a contained operation and so it wasn't as if it was trying to be everything to everybody and one of the things we had the benefit of was the applicants or the respondents all giving us an operating pro forma like what's the numbers how much revenue what's your cost give us some information. I think Pinnacle was wonderful in advising us but one of the things that we looked at and Pinnacle advisors look at is how dependent are they on food and beverage versus how dependent are they on to room rates and room revenue because that will tell you not a tangible form because you don't know what it looks like you don't know how it feels but it tells you volume right and there were material differences between the proposals relative to their reliance on food and beverage versus room weight and I felt very comfortable that Delamar and it was heightened and reaffirmed when we visited the rooms are what drive the experience there the rooms there were beautiful. I mean there's no other way to say it that happens to be a new construction Delamar is actually finishing a renovation in Mystic and have done that before but I just I got comfort there but I wanted to hopefully we can get to a little bit about sounds like there's clarity in that which is great like we kind of all left the my sense was looking at us all when we left the other night when we had the interviews were kind of like oh well that was interesting it wasn't necessarily what we came in thinking and stuff and so so I didn't know where we would end up here but I want to I think giving staff and giving Katie and me feedback on things in particular, you know, I dug that list is a good list but things to be talking about here which is so that we have things on our radar and again, this is the beginning of a conversation. This is not at the end of a conversation, but I think there are things that have been talked about here that you know landscaping is obviously going to be hugely important.

The removal of trees is going to be hugely important. We control you control the town controls every aspect of that. Right?

So so those are things that I just think of just important as we go down it because they are going to sometimes be tough decisions and sometimes be easy decisions, but you know, we have professional planning staff that will sit down and kind of hopefully arrange it all for us, but there's going to be a lot of those choices and things that we're going to have to and and and compromises. I mean, there's inevitable. I don't know what they are right now, but they're going to be so that's all I have to say.

But if you want to open up and express more specific things that you liked maybe in other proposals that you want to have make sure that we're focused on and make sure staff is really focused on because like there's an opportunity.

[Speaker 5] (2:21:52 - 2:22:28)
Okay. Yeah. I mean I I know as far as I'm concerned like if we can get to actually voting tonight.

I think that's like a whole nother step about like then then kind of going back to them in the process of negotiating and you know, what you know what the phases are and all of that seems to me kind of like given the time and the effort and the people more actually things I should be heard. I don't know that I'm not sure that is required tonight. At least that's not what I was thinking was required tonight.

The next step you like all the negotiating for every you want to be required again.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:28 - 2:23:41)
We're talking public having a conversation publicly, but it's really about just making sure that there I mean, let me let me say it differently for me. There are things in the drew proposal that I find interesting that still fits within the four corners of the box of the old historic portion of the annex but things that they thought about and uses in the building and and public space and I felt like they embrace that idea a bit more and that that I want to bring to Delamar and say hey this was out there. This was a good idea.

So I'm just looking for those like little nuggets to be honest with you. There's so many details to design and they haven't designed anything yet, right? But it's those type of things because while we may be unanimous in terms of thinking that Delamar is the is certainly from an operation standpoint.

I don't think it's unanimous in terms of we like everything, you know formally about Delamar. I frankly there's a number of things. I don't like about their presentation and what they were contemplating, but I'm really trying to more elicit are there things about nano it and and drew that you want to highlight as as important tonight.

And again, it's the first of many conversations. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:42 - 2:24:32)
One thing that I would like to put out into the ether in is the Druze community budget. That was a big I guess commitment for them to say in their proposal not knowing if they were even going to be a money forward operation in the first couple of years that they were committing to invest in our community monetarily and that's big and I think we should ask anybody that comes in and takes that space to do that because we are giving something up here. And so the community should be feeling like they're being invested in also.

That was one of the big things I thought that drew proposed that we should ask whomever we choose to also do.

[Speaker 24] (2:24:33 - 2:24:33)
It's a great one.

[Speaker 6] (2:24:33 - 2:24:55)
Well, we talk about a community budget, you know, one of the thing that has to really factor in is our infrastructure and making sure that there is good financial support additional financial support on infrastructure that will directly impact them or underground.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:55 - 2:25:38)
Yeah. No, it's it's good. I'm glad you're raising that the thanks to staff.

We have I and I mitigation now and there is no exemption for this project. So there's certainly going to be that as a baseline which in order of magnitude is hundreds of thousands of dollars. I mean just to give you a sense.

It's not it's not a small check. It's actually pretty significant one. But but I think that generally speaking they're going to through the process have to do certified to the town through professional engineers water capacity sewer capacity and all these things because I can guarantee you can't run two microwaves and Hadley School.

So I can guarantee you there's going to be significant, you know service upgrades there, but we should be thinking creatively about other things.

[Speaker 5] (2:25:39 - 2:26:21)
But I thought Katie was going to say actually, I mean one of the most striking things for me for drew was kind of a piece but the community feeling unless I'm mixing it up. They it was them the community feeling in the ground floor and actually having that be a space where people could kind of come and go and that would be almost part of the neighborhood. That's a little different than what you were just saying right now.

Is it not or is that what you were saying? Well, I think I said that originally when I was young, but absolutely totally now since we're squarely in the extracting out of others and to potentially and then the other thing is they seem very strong about generating events and they be true.

[Speaker 19] (2:26:21 - 2:26:21)
Sorry.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:22 - 2:26:37)
Yes, and that being a real strength for them and I'm not really sure, you know, whether or not Clearview is, you know geared for that but that certainly seem to be kind of a self-reinforcing mechanism both for the hotel and the community to be able to do that. So they can't go.

[Speaker 22] (2:26:37 - 2:26:38)
Okay, please.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:38 - 2:27:26)
I think something else that Andrea spoke about last time was Nano Nanit Nananet Nananet Noanit Noanit commitment in educating its visitors about the beach. And so I just think there is there is an education curve for whomever steps it. You want to go home, but you can't stay here that they to commit to understand the issues and then commit that their staff will be able to handle questions in an appropriate manner things like that so that we are not presenting a group of staff who is misinformed and continuing something that we are meant to reverse.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:26 - 2:28:56)
So so I wouldn't open to an education Doug Doug mentioned something that reminded me when we're talking about the ground floor and drew actually so drew actually had proposed. I'm going to call it retail space basically at the front corner of the historic building closest to Humphrey Street and just like I was talking about reliance on food and beverage. They also had a line item for collecting rent, right?

And so that means that they were somewhat reliant on it being successful as a revenue source, not just an amenity. So I'm I'm wondering how you all feel about that idea or an alternative maybe being take some of your inward functions and have them both look inward and outward like for example, the spa can both be forward-looking towards the community and also service. I'm just things like that so that you don't have a project that's dependent upon quote-unquote third-party retail space, which again, I'm if it was today, I would be highly skeptical of the success of the type of retail space that you would want there because I don't know that the market exists for it, but there's still an opportunity for activation.

So I'm just interested people have ideas about do they like the activation? They like to what Katie was talking about it and Doug was talking about. Did you not like that activation because that activation draws more people towards the hotel property or do you like the idea that maybe some of the internal services are also external available available externally if I'm making sense at all.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:56 - 2:29:45)
I thought retail space is great for that area when you have the town concerts on the lawn and you're looking for a place to grab or something like that or restrooms open to the public right down there. That would be great to have from a community perspective. What I think Mr. Chisoula brought this up in his public comment not to take away from the additive and not take away from the businesses that are that we're already helping, you know that we frequent that we want to see succeed that we don't want to see replaced. So I think I have no issue with retail space so long as it's additive and thoughtful in that way. So it's not a second. Oh, yeah, because I like oh, yeah.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:49 - 2:30:36)
I just really don't want to tell a business how to run a business. But if you did know, I just I just want to be open to making sure we're maximizing the revenue in there and also creating a fair balance. I mean, there's a lot of money that they're going to be investing in there and they need to be making a lot of money and my number one concern is the impact on the neighborhood.

Yeah, and keeping it keeping it out of balance. So I just think as we start this process down start this process will have a better understanding of what they need and what we're going to need. I just think we just have to have to start having the conversations.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:38 - 2:32:08)
You guys have anything before I go? I'm going to keep motion. I'm going to go through more couple more topics just because I want to I want to just tease things out here just because it's important.

No, I understand. But it's it's really this is some of these are just initial questions. So so I think are we all let's just talk about activation of Linscott right now.

There can't be any commercialization, you know, I mean, there's no permanent structures is no permanent improvements. I mean, they could certainly invest money in the park. Let's the wonderful thing that we're going to lose when Hadley's no longer school is the joyousness of during the day kids playing but that, you know, has also come at an expense to the the grass and condition of Linscott and for years things weren't done there because or warrant maintained or garden different way because it was also doubled duty if you will but any guidance specifically on that I Katie you've mentioned bathrooms a couple times one of the notes I wrote previously is geez. What's the potential of them putting a public bathroom on the Linscott side of the park as part of their building that would be available as an amenity, but I just wanted to see if you all had any thoughts about Linscott again, we don't control it's a conservation restriction.

So I want to just be careful and respect that but I do want to understand I think we need to clearly articulate to them how it's currently used what we see it as being used and you know, welcome investment if it's positive and accretive meaning to condition it and make it beautiful and but I just want to throw that up.

[Speaker 2] (2:32:09 - 2:33:29)
I think one of the cornerstones of Linscott are the size of the trees at Linscott that go along the border but but the Hadley property and I would we have to ask Gino and the tree committee the condition of those trees right if they're healthy and they then I think they should likely be preserved and if they can't be I want to know why or for what reason and understand if they are being taken down or is a tree of the same maybe not the same caliber because that's a lot of tree rings for them to replace but something that's going to grow to the same size and level of shade. I mean we had a whole presentation about what treat the shade from the trees and what that does for our environment and the increasing level of heat index because of the tree shade being lost.

So, you know, I just want to be aware of the landscaping. I know it's already come up. It also prevents noise from traveling that because of the size of those trees.

So as those things get removed really want to understand the impacts on on how that is going to change the dynamics of that Monument Ave area.

[Speaker 6] (2:33:31 - 2:33:32)
I'm not in favor of cutting down trees.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:33 - 2:33:33)
Me neither.

[Speaker 4] (2:33:34 - 2:34:57)
No, I mean, I'm in favor. I'm in favor of planting more trees and certainly and certainly conserving what we do have, you know, that's part of our history. And I think that's incredibly important that we that we maintain and expand upon that, you know, as a former member of the the rec Commission, I want to activate, you know, our outdoor spaces and our resource areas and and Lynn Scott Park, you know, should should be should be available for us to have community events and to do more and to to leverage to leverage that marriage that you know that we're going to enter into with, you know, a hotel developer to do more and to really help to really help us bring some new ideas and also some some capital to do more in the park to bring, you know, to bring more joy to to families to children to adults and to really to really see that space, you know, as as I think a lot of us have intended, you know, we may we may look at it and say, hey, you know, I want to I want to I want to have I want to have this over here. I want to have that over there, but I think we can do a lot. I think we can do more and I look forward to having those continued conversations and really activating and engaging Lynn Scott Park is as well as Town Hall lawn and and doing and doing more.

[Speaker 6] (2:34:57 - 2:34:59)
But Lynn Scott isn't in our jurisdiction.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:59 - 2:35:02)
Yeah, that's that's a conservation restriction in the Conservation Commission.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:03 - 2:37:05)
We have we have other stakeholders. What I'm trying to do is just to call it the calibrate expectations as we're talking with them to kind of meet a certain level of expectations and so many details to it. I just wanted to get a feel and if okay, I would like to do the same thing with regard to parking.

So the the zoning was written to allow a single-story parking garage just I think just to deal with just physical realities of is there enough spaces are there will be enough spaces. I don't think anybody wanted a parking garage. I don't think anybody wants a parking garage.

So the question is, you know, that the town now has the use of the st. John parking lot on non-church days. And so that's obviously great.

But let me just ask you about we've never had the problem of talking about things like valet. So for example in West Hartford they valet the hotel itself didn't provide it provided parking for the restaurant only but everybody else parked in an adjacent parking facility and they valet every single person there unlike here. It's not really a commuter hotel meaning.

I'm guessing they almost anybody who stayed there came there in car, right? They weren't coming from Bradley International Airport. They weren't, you know, that's far enough away that it was more of a destination place as opposed to I think here in talking with Delamar and drew and you know what they expect there to be a fair amount of kind of commuter between here in Boston.

This will be the night one of the nicest hotels for them without being in Boston. So the ratio may be a little bit more favorable but just kind of thoughts about parking and and just the realities of valet because the alternative is if the more we push them away from those type of things the more they begin to look at structures again and maximizing parking on site. And I think that there is a I don't know the answer but there's a balance to maybe I just want to hear from you all on that because that's going to be helpful to again set expectations because they're going to zone in on this question, which is a really fair question for everybody to zone in on.

[Speaker 2] (2:37:06 - 2:38:24)
I think that I want to take that question and flip it a little bit only because I will answer that question. But also I want to bring up the concern of not just they're going to come tourists will come or folks who want to enjoy Swanscot will come to the hotel. They're going to park at the hotel, but then they're going to travel other places that they need to park right the beach the train station all these other places who we don't have a ton of parking for any of those options either.

So I think I believe Delamar proposed which something which I thought was really great, which was like transportation to the beach transportation of Wonderland transportation to the train station, you know, maybe transportation into Salem so that wherever cars end up parking. They aren't then becoming an issue somewhere else. Like we've we're creating a parking solution and not causing a problem somewhere else, right?

So finding spots for all those cars. Wouldn't it be great if they could stay there now that we found the solution hopefully and they could get elsewhere with Delamar service. I thought that was something that we should definitely encourage and wrongly Yeah, like a trolley or something.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:24 - 2:38:32)
Also, how lovely right they had a car if I remember correctly David when we walked in there was a Delamar car parked out front which seemed to be like some type of trance.

[Speaker 2] (2:38:32 - 2:39:13)
I didn't get clarity as to what they did there, but and they also felt like they did something some potentially a boat in a fisherman's or somewhere where you know, you could take the boat out for a little trip to Nahant or I mean, I think that's fantastic. I think that's a wonderful option that they could have for people who are visiting and it's going to get them to engage in other things that are happening around town right coming down to fishermen's and you know, maybe eating and Yorthaven and getting on the boat and going for a ride and you know, seeing what the beauty of from the coastline in I just I think that that's idyllic.

[Speaker 4] (2:39:13 - 2:39:27)
So let's I think we should Peter you mentioned it but you kind of glossed over it, you know, the fact that the fact that you mentioned the church parking lot st. John's parking lot is now available.

[Speaker 6] (2:39:27 - 2:39:29)
We have multiple. Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:29 - 2:39:32)
It's the most under advertised thing in the world for some reason. Yeah, Mr. Town administrator.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:33 - 2:39:50)
Yes, it is but the town has paved a lot and every resident of the town can use the lot. We're waiting for signage to go up the churches working with the town to put up the signage and make sure that everybody knows that during service, you know, cars will be that's great.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:50 - 2:39:53)
So thanks. We're on it church. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:53 - 2:40:07)
And frankly, I want to thank Mary Ellen and and the st. John's Church for working with us. It's the first time in a generation that we've had that partnership.

Our new months in your senior John McLaughlin senior John McLaughlin. He's been a great community partner.

[Speaker 6] (2:40:07 - 2:40:17)
We have we also have We have other churches in town. We do have already stepped up and said that they would be interested.

[Speaker 3] (2:40:17 - 2:40:25)
One of the pastors spoke at our last meeting when we had the interviews and said that he was very interested in meeting down.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:25 - 2:41:09)
So am I am I some am I just to kind of move things along? Am I feeling right? We're leaning on to the extent the conversation goes there.

We're all in agreement that as parking structure, let's assume in the crazy world. It's economically viable. It's not where we want this to go.

So therefore we I just want to be candid about the fact that it's probably going to take us down the path of ballet because that is there. There is not going to be enough space on site. It's just realistic.

So I just wanted to and we would have to then as a town and towns have done it all over the place. They create regulations that control and dictate and do all that stuff, right? That's that would be new to us because we don't have that.

But I just wanted to just make sure that as we advance and set expectations, we know where to push and pull.

[Speaker 4] (2:41:09 - 2:41:11)
I just think I go ahead, Katie.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:11 - 2:41:12)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:41:12 - 2:42:04)
I have been speaking on you know, I just I think that I think that if we're if we're truly listening to the neighbors, you know, and we're looking to preserve the historic main building potentially preserved. Well, as proposed proposed preserve the annex, it would really be out of character to have a parking structure at the Hadley school. So even if that is to give up, you know, where to get, you know, where to reduce the number of parking spaces from I believe what was in the Delamar proposal approximately 80 or so, you know, and maybe you could squeeze 110 or 120.

I just to me that's just not that's not worth it. I have a parking structure in a you know, you know in a close adjacency to a residential neighborhood. That's just that's just my personal opinion.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:04 - 2:42:53)
I do also want to talk about the displaced parking that will happen because the Hadley parking lot will no longer be available. So if any evening you go by there's 2030 cars who are parking there and dining at Mission or any of the other restaurants on the street or utilizing it for other things. So in talking about parking, it's not just talking about hotel parking.

It's talking about those 2030 cars at a time who now need to find a spot and being thoughtful that this is not just for hotel guests. It's first for the community and then for hotel guests at this point so that they have a place to go and so those restaurants stay too because this is not to replace one thing with another this is to make that area. Even greater.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:54 - 2:44:34)
Sorry, and then my last last thing is just the comment about whether or not we want to give thought we don't need to tonight but about look at it's a negotiation. But at some point if we do get to a financial agreement with Delamar, it's you're working to yes, right? You I mean at some point you are working to yes, meaning that you've got a not every issue is a deal killer, right?

And so there's compromise there's give and take and there's things like that. And so I that that shows in design at times on things and so I'm just wondering if we want to and we can pick the conversation up have some technical community members and a couple of neighbors community members kind of join that dialogue to help advise staff because I think this board is going to be heavily dependent upon staff frankly doing the legwork in between meetings because again this board can't you know itself do it also just think about creating what what is a functional again?

It would be a public committee. So therefore it takes a lot of those conversations public which again doesn't mean it's every conversations there, but it's kind of check backs with the committee to make sure that we're doing things that staff is thinking about asking the right questions and doing those things if you can just give some thought as to that but I want to make it a process that's not a again. Yeah, it's got to be the right balance.

It's got to be collaborative right to kind of working to the best deal and at some point, you know, we'll come back and say this is just just ungodly necessary and they'll come back and say but we can't do that but we can do this and right and so there's going to be some of that as well, but I think having that technical support to help staff through this process seems very appropriate.

[Speaker 5] (2:44:34 - 2:45:13)
So I think I think half of the Hadley neighborhood is still here. I think they're like ready to sign up for volunteering for the committee right now. But do you think I think you mentioned this last time Peter maybe at the end of the month, would it make sense for us to come back with, you know, laying out a little bit for my sake for other sake to kind of like what this timeline looks like going on.

I think we have to have a conversation with the reason we don't where the input points in like, you know, you come back with kind of like, you know, we want six people and three from the Hadley neighborhood and three not or you know, I think so.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:13 - 2:45:57)
I think have let the initial conversations with Delamar happen just to acquaint each other right because we haven't had it's been very arm's length and formalistic but let's have those because then we can bake that into what is what we've already said kind of the multi-step process here and then I can come back. I think our next meeting is it's probably not we have school vacation in between so probably wouldn't be it probably yeah, it's not going to happen by then because the school vacation in between and I can't but sometime in March we come back as kind of the next public conversation about so these are where we think that the framework of structure is process and where the the votes are for this committee. Where is public input?

Where's you know, all the different milestones.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:57 - 2:46:17)
We just talked about a rooftop for a moment. So a lot of the rooftop spaces and the other proposal were I think sort of restaurant based like open to public restaurants sort of they weren't all well, they're not done.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:17 - 2:46:22)
Della Delamar's not Delamar's Delamar's not third-party Delamar actually owns their restaurants. Oh, I was just focusing.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:23 - 2:46:23)
Yes. No.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:23 - 2:46:24)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:46:24 - 2:47:17)
Yes, but I just want to make sure that we're thoughtful and specific with whomever we go to like I understand there's a revenue driver for events, but I don't want like the roof to become an exclusive space that the community can't get to do you know what I mean? Like if they're planning a two weddings every single day in the summer weekends and you can't get to enjoy the beautiful view during the peak. So just to sort of figure out whatever that balances between you know, like embracing the community and allowing them to enjoy it for what it is and not just it becoming like an exclusive space that we can't get into because we're not having a boutique hotel wedding.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:17 - 2:47:25)
I think that if I remember correctly to remember if I'm wrong a Delamar actually had the least amount of common space. I'm going to call on the roof. They actually had suites.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:25 - 2:47:25)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:26 - 2:47:44)
And so that's just something that we should be talking. I mean, yeah, it's just I remember sticking out at me Delamar also had residents in one project that's because they adopted them. So they've said that they aren't doing this, but they can't under our zoning.

We actually it's not even zoning. We actually have a deed restriction that prohibits.

[Speaker 6] (2:47:45 - 2:47:46)
Okay. I just want to make sure.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:46 - 2:47:46)
Yeah. Yeah. No, no.

[Speaker 19] (2:47:46 - 2:47:47)
Yep. Yep. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:47 - 2:47:50)
I think I'll make sure to bring them.

[Speaker 2] (2:47:51 - 2:48:01)
Yeah, but like half of the rooftop is they consider private space to the guest suites and that's both a pro and con right because that also then moderates how much the rooftop is used.

[Speaker 1] (2:48:01 - 2:48:05)
And so therefore the noise neighbors think of that. But at the same time it also great.

[Speaker 2] (2:48:05 - 2:48:14)
So I don't having a thoughtful conversation about what the community wants to see happen. Okay. All right, throwing out the pros and cons to that and seeing where we all right.

[Speaker 1] (2:48:14 - 2:48:17)
Good idea. I'm done with my list. Thanks for bearing with me.

[Speaker 3] (2:48:20 - 2:49:31)
I just want to say whatever decision the board ultimately makes and I hope you make one tonight. The proposals were absolutely extraordinary. John drew.

I reached out to him before the pandemic. I mentioned it earlier to have an individual like that come back to Swampskate and say, hey, I care about this town. He had a his son grew up in Marvel head.

They have a passion for doing important housing projects. I actually contacted him about affordable housing and and to have somebody to show us that attention is incredible. Jordan Warshaw, you know, was is a visionary and is absolutely somebody that I hope in some ways we can find a path forward with on some level, but really appreciated the passion that Clearview brought to the table.

I think they're pragmatic and I think, you know, they they give us a team to work with, but I think we'll support community and help create a really special and unique project for for Swampskate for generations to come.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:32 - 2:49:33)
Thanks, Sean.

[Speaker 5] (2:49:36 - 2:49:40)
Go for it. No, no, no, no. You're a baby man.

You just you got to do it, Katie.

[Speaker 2] (2:49:41 - 2:49:58)
I'll do it since you guys want to pick over. So I would like to propose a vote of designating our developer for the hub and school project as Clearview, which is the Dell Delamar brand.

[Speaker 24] (2:49:58 - 2:49:59)
Mm-hmm.

[Speaker 4] (2:49:59 - 2:50:00)
Do I have a second?

[Speaker 6] (2:50:04 - 2:50:05)
Peter seconded.

[Speaker 4] (2:50:06 - 2:50:07)
Second. All in favor.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:07 - 2:50:08)
Aye. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 4] (2:50:09 - 2:50:11)
All right. Thank you. Thanks for everyone's patience.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:11 - 2:50:30)
You know, I do have one thing to say. I did ask Delamar how they found out about this and it's a Swampskate resident is friends with the sun. Yes, and she made the call.

So I don't know what her name is, but thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:50:33 - 2:50:35)
You're responsible for this, Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:36 - 2:50:41)
It's very happy. I didn't go residents. Yeah, I'm happy.

[Speaker 4] (2:50:41 - 2:50:42)
All right.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:42 - 2:50:44)
Thank you a little young. Yep.

[Speaker 4] (2:50:44 - 2:50:55)
All right with the indulgence of the board. We'll move forward to the closing of our special town meeting warrant from March 11th of 24 including review discussion and vote on articles.

[Speaker 3] (2:51:00 - 2:52:06)
The finance committee met tonight. Just want to report out that the finance committee met and approved for recommendation in this warrant articles one an amendment to FY 24 operating budget and article to another amendment to the operating budget article for the removal of that's go from chapter 64 B and article 9 an increase in the local room excise tax for hotel motel. As we step forward, we can kind of just annotate Sean just to recap.

You said 1249 so they did not do three. They did not do three. They had some I think they were waiting for the select boards position.

Okay, and article eight. They had a few questions about free cash and the use of some funds for that.

[Speaker 5] (2:52:06 - 2:52:08)
Okay, so we'll come back around to that.

[Speaker 6] (2:52:08 - 2:52:14)
Okay, we will so we're voting on each article.

[Speaker 4] (2:52:14 - 2:52:21)
Yeah, let's vote on the articles, you know, now that we have the recommendations of fincom, you know for article one.

[Speaker 5] (2:52:22 - 2:52:33)
Is there a is there a motion to I move that the select board recommends to town meeting the approval of article one second all in favor.

[Speaker 3] (2:52:33 - 2:52:41)
I I'm assuming when select board member Stelios comes back.

[Speaker 5] (2:52:43 - 2:52:51)
We just we're cooking already. We we just took a vote on recommending this committee. Did you join us on that?

I'm good.

[Speaker 1] (2:52:51 - 2:52:52)
Yes. Yeah. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:52:53 - 2:53:11)
Yes. The note p is that the select board recommends favorable action on article one I move if I cook in here, I move article to select board recommendation. I second that.

[Speaker 4] (2:53:11 - 2:53:14)
Yeah, you second all in favor. I thanks.

[Speaker 24] (2:53:16 - 2:53:21)
No, I'm sorry. I I'm going to get back making progress.

[Speaker 1] (2:53:21 - 2:54:04)
Can we just say quickly just what they are? I mean, we don't need a description just because the people here are here. Okay, article one article one was just a allocation to the schools of additional money that came through effectively through the budget post budget up to town budget approval through the state budget.

And so this is just an allocation of additional $186,000 to the schools for their budget article two was homeless and foster care transportation and transferring a sum of $26,000 and change that was a reimbursement the state that the town got that we're now just transferring over to the school the school department.

[Speaker 4] (2:54:04 - 2:54:19)
Yeah, and now and now we're on article three article three is to amend the appropriation for for fiscal year 24 operating budget collected bargaining agreements, which we which we voted unanimously to approve for the DPW this evening.

[Speaker 2] (2:54:20 - 2:54:24)
So I motion that the select board recommends favorable action on article three.

[Speaker 4] (2:54:24 - 2:54:52)
So good all in favor. Hi. Hi.

Thanks. Article for home rule legislation or other special legislation. This is a vote to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to grant petition to the general court for special legislation exempting the town from the requirement to accept and grant applications for evaluation assessment and taxation of land under the provisions of national law chapter 61 B.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:53 - 2:55:35)
So can I just give two sentence explanation? So currently under state law private golf courses are able to automatically file and receive a two-thirds exemption from their real estate tax for their golf course. And that's been in place since I think the 70s or 80s petition in Swampscott.

I believe 60. I think 16 out of the 18 holes are in Swampscott the clubhouse is in Marblehead. The clubhouse can get taxed differently and Marblehead does tax the clubhouse differently, but in Swampscott, we only have the golf course itself.

And so this would allow us to get permission from the legislature to get out of that exemption and require Tedesco Country Club to pay full

[Speaker 4] (2:55:35 - 2:57:08)
real estate taxes and just and just in the comment for article 4 Country Club saw a tax savings in the current fiscal year of a hundred and seventy four thousand nine hundred and seventy seven dollars and 1 million nine hundred and twenty nine thousand two hundred and forty six dollars over the last 10 years. These funds could have been used to help support important services in our community such as education public safety infrastructure, etc. I'm a favorable action of article for all in favor.

I thank you. Article 5 is a charter general bylaw amendment election related provisions to see if the town will amend the town charter to establish a minimum number of votes for election as town meeting member require a postcard and early voting application be sent to all residents of the town mandate early voting in person and early voting by mail provide for the annual town election to occur after the annual town meeting and extend the terms of those elected at the annual election occurring the year prior to the implementation of this act to be consistent with the new election date further to authorize a select board to file with the general court a petition for special legislation to amend the town charter and authorized general court to make changes of form only to the bill without the approval of the select board and authorized the select board to approve such changes as are within the public purposes of the petition for special legislation authorized here under Mr. Chairman.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:08 - 2:58:50)
Can I just as I suggested both of the decks to so if you don't mind go ahead the the I just wanted to the provisions regarding early voting just take the two weeks ago. I think we voted to do the early voting for municipal elections. It's an option.

So this language actually would require early voting for municipal elections and not making an option for the town to decide year to year whether or not we should be doing early voting. I believe we should be to the maximum extent allowed by the law doing early voting and making it easy for residents to vote. Secondly with regard to the dates currently we have our election.

I think it's the fourth Tuesday in April and then the third Monday in May we have town meeting town meetings the byproduct of a yearlong effort to create the annual town meeting warrant working on budgets capital plans etc. And so oftentimes having the election three weeks before actually causes an influx of elected people whether it's on this board the finance committee town meeting etc. that actually have nothing to do and didn't play a role.

So what this does is corrects the order which is the case in virtually every other community including Marblehead for example which has the town election after the annual town meeting as opposed to before the annual town meeting. This separately suggests and proposes for a town meeting to talk about changing the voting day instead of having it be in Tuesdays but have it be on the second second consecutive Saturday and Sunday in June which is before school lets out but proposes doing it on two weekend days. Again respectful of religions understanding that there's different days but to as many communities and commonwealth that don't put our elections on weekends.

[Speaker 5] (2:58:51 - 2:58:54)
Can make one of my questions. So this is done in.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:55 - 2:59:25)
Yeah I don't know of anyone. I do not know Doug who's done multiple days but there are a number of communities that have Saturday elections. So this is this is suggesting Saturday and Sunday.

And again my my point on that was I felt especially in a community like Swanscott where we have different denominations and great religious diversity. I think picking one over the other didn't feel appropriate. And the goal here is to to expand access.

We did thanks to Sean did have a conversation with the town clerk about these and he was supportive.

[Speaker 6] (2:59:28 - 3:00:18)
So I brought this up last at the last meeting which was just last week. When you have a special town meeting special town meetings are just that they're special. I don't feel that it's a good idea to put something as robust as changing our voting making an amendment to our charter in a special town meeting.

So once again I'm going to make a motion to remove Article 5 from this warrant and put it on to the annual town meeting and to have conversations open conversations and public hearings to get more information out on this. I think it's very short amount of time. So and please don't feel that you have to second my motion but I am making the motion.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:19 - 3:00:24)
I'm going to forego the arguments I made last time. Just if anybody else wants to say anything otherwise you can go to a vote.

[Speaker 4] (3:00:25 - 3:00:29)
Do I have a second? I had I can.

[Speaker 5] (3:00:30 - 3:00:31)
Oh good. Yeah. You can.

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (3:00:31 - 3:00:32)
Ask you ask your question.

[Speaker 5] (3:00:32 - 3:00:43)
Is this final version that we're looking at here. This is fully vetted by council town council drafted it. It is.

Yeah. Okay. Because just parts of it that didn't see to make sense to me.

[Speaker 6] (3:00:43 - 3:01:08)
But so I also make a point is so town council vetted this and we we just heard about this a few weeks ago. Like I literally walked into a select board meeting and I learned about this while sitting at the select board meeting. So there isn't even a conversation about it in advance.

What do people think. I just think this is just being thrown out there and so.

[Speaker 1] (3:01:08 - 3:01:47)
So now. So now I'm going to. So now I'm going to respond because you've decided to make the point.

So look at I believe town meeting is prepared. This is not first of all an intellectual heavy lift for town meeting to have the debate of town meeting decides that they don't want to take action town meeting can decide they want to postpone and that and I would be completely supportive of them doing it. I believe we are just overdue and town meeting is the place where we're talking to our most active voters.

Just candidly this is and I have the statistics and and to do it here. So so I appreciate what you're saying. The timing of this is also because the legislative set session is drawing to a close.

So we want to get the home rule petition filed as soon as we can to do it. But I hear you.

[Speaker 6] (3:01:47 - 3:01:55)
But anyways I think it's also I think it's also record that at our special town meetings our attendance is lower than at our annual town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (3:01:56 - 3:01:57)
Yeah I hope not.

[Speaker 6] (3:01:57 - 3:02:09)
That's why I am saying do this at the annual town meeting or do it when we have some time to really get the information out there and get people interested. I feel like we are just we are being way too hasty.

[Speaker 1] (3:02:09 - 3:02:56)
And so but we but we engage in this conversation last time. So I don't want to rehash it. But you're you're reiterating the points.

We are about to talk about a Warren article that's a several hundred page bylaw change that you're asking the town in a special town meeting to approve that you have supported that actually hasn't had any more light in there given to it. And I appreciate that because I also support that one. But I just don't I don't think we can choose indiscriminately one versus the other.

The one that we're talking about the stretch code is going to cost potentially every single homeowner in town if they were to do a project funding. And it's it is a very lengthy thick thing. But you have voted favorably for it and that you wanted on this warrant.

I'm just trying to reconcile those things.

[Speaker 6] (3:02:56 - 3:03:00)
So I can answer it. I cannot. You know I feel like I'm on trial here but you're not.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:00 - 3:03:02)
I just want to have a dialogue. I'm not.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:02 - 3:03:27)
But here's here's here's the answer that question is selectman Thompson here has made it very clear that the reason we do want to had have that other article in is it has a financial impact on the community. So a positive financial impact we have the ability to apply for grants and to make some changes to the better. There's also going to be a public hearing on the twenty seventh about it.

So we'll have some time to sit and talk about it.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:27 - 3:03:36)
So I appreciate we're just stating our positions and I'm not I'm not going to look to convince you on this. I just I think the inconsistency is just something important for me to know.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:37 - 3:03:46)
So if there was a commitment for a town meeting I mean I'm sorry if there was a commitment for a public meeting on this article before town meeting special town meeting would you feel better about this one article.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:47 - 3:04:32)
I think when it comes to voting I think voting is very very serious and I would like to see all of town meeting present. The attendance at special town meetings is has always been smaller than tenants at the annual town meeting. So yes I would feel better but I would it wouldn't get me over to changing my mind.

And the only reason I am supporting the article that that we have in here on the stretch code is because it has to do with being able to apply for additional grants and because they are going to vet it in a public meeting. I mean I could go to public meeting and find out. I mean I'm going off of what Doug has has no no I reiterated to us so I'm going to see if we can I hope I could trust him get to the same place with the same.

[Speaker 2] (3:04:32 - 3:04:33)
Do you know what I mean.

[Speaker 6] (3:04:33 - 3:04:58)
Yeah. No there's no way. This is really this is really intense.

I don't know. I don't really I want to hear. I want to hear what people have to have to say about voting on Saturdays and Sundays and you know do you really want to vote in June.

I mean I think it's a bigger conversation and it should be it should be out there and it should be at annual town meeting. That's so I've already said this enough. You can say it again.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:59 - 3:04:59)
It's OK.

[Speaker 2] (3:04:59 - 3:05:37)
And I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm trying to have an understanding of how we can get it to a point that we all feel comfortable and if there is a point and if there isn't we don't I'm not trying to belabor it. But there I think there there are pieces of this to your point.

Yes there are pieces of it that we learned. Whatever a month ago or whenever the first article came up there are pieces of this that we have been talking about since you and I have been elected which include the part about the schedule being off for all of us. I mean we've been talking about that for some time.

[Speaker 6] (3:05:39 - 3:05:44)
So so Peter has brought it up a couple of times the schedule being off. To be honest with you I don't have a problem with the schedule being off.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:44 - 3:07:22)
Yeah I think so Polly brought it up. Neal Ballard brought it up. But yeah I think it's not just Peter but it has been brought up by other I think boards and committee members too.

Not just here but that it does become interesting. It just becomes an interesting conversation that you have to get up to speed so quickly to feel like you could take an educated position which is what we are all trying to do on matters that you haven't been you know speaking on for a year time. And the folks who are passionate about issues for a year plus three years sometimes in our case they finally come to fruition and they don't get to feel the significance of closure voting for or against it.

So I most definitely support for sure that piece of it because I think it does make sense and I think we have discussed it. Happy to have a public process not trying to keep public conversation out of this. So if that is what's going to make us more comfortable happy to to continue to make sure that that happens.

Because that's not the intention is not to keep the public out of it. It's actually to bring them to the polls to get them to vote for the people that they want to see in these seats. Even if it's not me.

I don't really care. I want you guys to vote. I want I want you to feel represented in your government.

And I want to make that as easy as possible. So more people participate and less people feel disengaged and angry and disenfranchised.

[Speaker 5] (3:07:22 - 3:07:58)
And so well, I think I think having a public meeting about this can't hurt. If I understand correctly that maybe is being discussed or worked on right now. And so that would be just in keeping with the other things that we're doing.

There's going to be one on pickleball this week. No Thursday night six o'clock right here. Right.

As can be one on specialized energy code. Let's have one on voting as well. Can't hurt some different people get some different ideas.

Move the conversation along. Maybe it'll make special town meeting a little shorter because we've already had some of the debate. Who knows.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:59 - 3:08:02)
But so if you're cool with that, I'm great with that.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:02 - 3:08:06)
And I also I want to implore over. Don't really know.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:06 - 3:08:06)
I'm not.

[Speaker 2] (3:08:07 - 3:08:34)
I want to implore over communication for the town moderator on these issues for the special town meeting if that's where this is going. Because if I don't want town meeting members to feel like they don't understand what they're voting on. And I know the town moderator always tries to overly communicate.

He has sessions for all town meeting members to come and understand the articles and ask questions. But I just want to reiterate over communication.

[Speaker 4] (3:08:35 - 3:09:01)
Yeah. And if we're voting to close the warrant this evening, which hopefully we get through, I will be working with the moderator to set up those, you know, those opportunities where members of members of town meeting can come and ask questions as well. So I've always found those helpful as a town meeting member.

And I always found those helpful to really gauge a pulse from the community, you know, as a select board member. So happy to happy to facilitate.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:04 - 3:09:06)
I have no motion to make.

[Speaker 6] (3:09:07 - 3:09:10)
She made a motion. So nobody made a motion.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:10 - 3:09:25)
Got it. Second. I'm Mary Ellen's.

Yeah. The second we're moving on to the next article. No, no, no, we can vote.

I'm sorry, which one? She was voting to remove.

[Speaker 6] (3:09:25 - 3:09:28)
I was voting. My recommendation.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:28 - 3:09:33)
Well, yeah. Recommend favorable action. Article five.

I'm sorry. I'm getting tired of the second.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:34 - 3:09:50)
We do. Can we? Okay.

Motion's been seconded, but I would like to amend the motion that we do not come to any action on this article until the public meeting and that we report on it at town.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:51 - 3:09:53)
I'm okay with that. I would withdraw my motion.

[Speaker 24] (3:09:54 - 3:09:54)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:56 - 3:14:06)
I got an article six. So article six is the second is the second voting one, which was inspired with conversations with with some of our younger citizens. And this would join the increasing chorus of communities who have asked the legislature for permission.

And this is an important part of it to allow in town elections only not state or federal elections allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote. There's actually revised language in your warrant that actually makes clear that they also can run but only for town meeting, not for other town wide offices for town meeting only. And that was the recommendation talking with with council of what other communities have talked at as this.

So this this really important. This doesn't do anything except have us join the list of waiting communities who for a while now have asked the legislature because the legislature needs to approve this to entertain it. Boston, Somerville, Southboro, Acton, Concord, North Hampton.

I can go on of communities who have passed a similar by law that needs the legislative approval. The legislature. In addition to that, in the legislature, aside from these requests are actually just general bills about allowing 16 and 17 year olds and or 17 year olds to vote.

They haven't taken an action. So really by doing this and sending this legislature, we're just adding our voice to the debate and say this is something the legislature needs to explore and actively consider. Whereas to date, there really hasn't been much active debate.

It's really just sat and sat in committees and hasn't been part of a robust thing and increasing and adding swamps got to the list of communities at least just says there's another community that wants to have the conversation and hopefully more later this month. The 16 and 17 year olds in the high school will actually be partaking in a mock town meeting where they'll actually be debating this question and whether or not they think 16 and 17 year olds will be there. It's it's a civics lesson for them.

It's one that they're they're going to run the moderator and the clerk have generously offered to moderate and swear in temporary town meeting members to have that conversation. But really the premise comes down to this and there's so many reasons why I think this is an important dialogue and an important thing to have happen is we're not capturing our voters and swamps that's not different than any community. So this is yes, we're talking about swamps because this is our town.

This is where we can start doing something but not any different allowing voting starting at 16 and 17 allows them to do it while they're still here in town while they're still actively living here in town while they are still learning and with teachers and with academic advisors who can teach them about civics and really partake in a real life civics lessons. No no better example than what's not working is the fact that right now our 18 year olds we asked them to vote for the first time we asked them to vote in April when many of our 18 year olds aren't even living in our community. And so therefore the first exercise if they do it at all is going to be by absentee if at all and the reason I keep on saying if at all is because we know about the abysmal turnout here and in every community in every community for local elections.

But in the last 10 years the turnout of first time 18 year olds is one half of or below the turnout of everybody else. So for example in 23 13.9% of the residents voted only 7.7% of first time 18 year olds voted 7.7 and again voting is foreign. It's part because we don't have it on a date that may they may be in town but but also we're introducing them for the first time of voting at a point in time where they you know are really not connected to the town in a lot of times.

So so it's really about just encouraging the debate at the state legislature the state is not going to my guess is individually solve this. They're probably going to come up with a uniform uniform response to this. But I think it's really important and debate to be had and ask us to to join that debate and encouraging the legislature.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:08 - 3:14:29)
Peter can you I just have a question from a procedure mechanical procedure. We join the list the legislature debates say the legislature approves everybody on that list just now has the change to their town charter. We come back and have an additional conversation.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:29 - 3:15:06)
Now it's so this this actually would have the change of the town charter. It wouldn't take effect. It's for example in the remarkable case that the legislature ever did something in calendar year 24.

It wouldn't take place. It wouldn't take part this year. So the 25 election would be the earliest if if at all.

But the the the my guess Katie is that they're either going to approve individual home rule petitions which I think is less likely or they're going to make a uniform change for the entire state saying that they will allow this. And I can't guess what that legislation will say but that's my that's my guess based on talking with the secretary of state's office and the feedback from town council.

[Speaker 2] (3:15:06 - 3:15:34)
So this goes to town meeting town meeting votes in my hypothesis to pass this. Yeah the soonest this election the 16 and 17 year olds would be able to vote in this election would be the town election in 25 the town election in 25. So we're not like if the legislature approved it.

Yes yes yes. So we're not talking about you know a few months from now. No correct.

[Speaker 5] (3:15:35 - 3:15:41)
We're not. I mean I mean the other towns that have done it. They've been waiting for years now.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:42 - 3:16:55)
Not all not all. I think Boston's one of the longer ones. I think Concord and Acton actually the longest there was years ago there was a state rep in the Berkshires who has since passed and he filed them for all his communities every year that he served.

But so it's been a lingering topic out there. Again I think it's not surprising anybody messages it's despite being as forward thinking about certain things we are not when it comes to voting. We've been one of the slower states in terms of access to polls.

So I think it's a great I can't wait to hear what the 16 and 17 year olds have to say. I don't think it's a slam dunk. I think it's going to be an interesting dynamic and to have that conversation with them about it here.

I did I will admit I did have a chuckle when someone and I said this already but someone said well what's to stop all the kids from showing up and voting to increase funding for town sports. And I said well the rest of you adults that don't want it showing up and voting the other way. And that's the that's actually democracy right now.

Thirteen point nine percent are deciding everything right. And so you know let's increase that debate. I think it's it's truly healthy and getting kids to do it at the local level is a great learning exercise and grow and voter.

So thank you for hearing me out.

[Speaker 6] (3:16:56 - 3:17:11)
So Mr. Chairman staying consistent with my previous request. I'd like to make a motion to remove article or article numbers is remove article number six and put it into the annual town meeting.

[Speaker 4] (3:17:11 - 3:17:13)
So I have a second.

[Speaker 1] (3:17:19 - 3:17:23)
And similarly I won't make a motion to recommend we'll hold that one out as well.

[Speaker 4] (3:17:23 - 3:17:26)
We'll report on the city at town at town meeting as well.

[Speaker 2] (3:17:26 - 3:17:32)
And the public process that we're talking about will include this topic. It will not just be the other topic.

[Speaker 4] (3:17:32 - 3:17:45)
No it's going to be both. Articles seven TBD more being finalized.

[Speaker 1] (3:17:48 - 3:17:55)
The mock town meeting is the week after vacation and will parents be allowed to attend. You'll have to ask this. You'll have to ask the principal.

[Speaker 20] (3:17:56 - 3:18:02)
That's not a state ethics commission about sending an elected official to moderate a debate. You have to potentially affect the outcome.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:03 - 3:18:08)
You have to talk to the principal about any concerns that have to do with school. No one here can speak for the school.

[Speaker 16] (3:18:09 - 3:18:12)
I'm not sending anyone.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:13 - 3:18:19)
The principal has invited this activity to happen. You have to talk to the principal. All right.

[Speaker 4] (3:18:19 - 3:18:20)
Excuse me. Excuse me.

[Speaker 24] (3:18:20 - 3:18:22)
We have a you have to do.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:22 - 3:18:23)
I'm Peter. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 24] (3:18:23 - 3:18:24)
We have a we have a warrant.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:24 - 3:18:24)
We have a warrant.

[Speaker 4] (3:18:25 - 3:18:46)
Thank you. Thank you. All right.

Article seven general bylaw amendment specialized energy code to see if the town will vote to enact article 16a of the town of Swampskate general bylaws entitled specialized energy code for the purpose of regulating the design. We've already we've already voted already recommended favorable action. Okay.

Sorry about that. Article eight.

[Speaker 5] (3:18:46 - 3:19:00)
We just say when the public meeting is that 27th be 129 what time and where 730 because that is also black history month event.

[Speaker 24] (3:19:01 - 3:19:02)
Oh here.

[Speaker 5] (3:19:02 - 3:19:13)
So we purposely put it a different time black history. I think it's from 6 to 730 and it starts at 730 and it's here. It's here.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (3:19:13 - 3:19:16)
So you could attend both. Fantastic.

[Speaker 4] (3:19:18 - 3:19:18)
Thanks.

[Speaker 2] (3:19:19 - 3:19:24)
And you said the finance committee recommended favorable actions on seven.

[Speaker 4] (3:19:24 - 3:19:25)
They didn't need to.

[Speaker 2] (3:19:26 - 3:19:32)
But it's just so they're not going to be asked to recommend any action.

[Speaker 3] (3:19:32 - 3:19:38)
They may make a recommendation town meeting. Okay. You know they may attend this information session.

[Speaker 6] (3:19:39 - 3:19:45)
Wait a second. I just can you just go over there again. So you're telling me the finance committee is not going to make that's what I just asked.

[Speaker 3] (3:19:45 - 3:19:48)
I know they can. They just didn't.

[Speaker 23] (3:19:48 - 3:19:54)
Hi. Hi Mary Ellen. They were just looking for more information.

So they said that they would report on this at town meeting.

[Speaker 6] (3:19:54 - 3:19:55)
Thank you. It's going to go to you.

[Speaker 4] (3:20:02 - 3:20:27)
Okay. Article eight is the appropriation for the park grant to see if town of Swamps will vote to raise appropriate transfer from available funds and or borrow the sum of one hundred and three thousand eight hundred and seventy dollars and authorize the treasurer with the approval of the select board to borrow said sum pursuant to the provisions of national law chapter forty four section seven eight eight C and or any other enabling authority for the purpose of improving renovating and equipping Phillips Park with four pickleball courts.

[Speaker 2] (3:20:29 - 3:20:48)
So I'm not comfortable in recommending a any having any recommendation by the select board until the public process is heard and the public has a forum to have a conversation about this that is scheduled to happen on when Thursday Thursday. So until such happens.

[Speaker 4] (3:20:48 - 3:20:59)
So Thursday two fifteen. What time Diane. Do you have that detail.

I just want to have six o'clock six o'clock.

[Speaker 6] (3:20:59 - 3:21:08)
So what is that process going to look like if people come in and say they have different ideas on where this pickleball court should be. How is that going.

[Speaker 3] (3:21:09 - 3:21:29)
The grant is for the location that we've specified but if they have ideas about where else they would like to see pickleball courts we certainly would entertain any of those ideas but certainly any feedback anybody has about pickleball. We're happy to take that feedback.

[Speaker 6] (3:21:30 - 3:21:41)
Well I think what I'm trying to say is if if people come in and say listen I think you should put pickleball courts here instead of that Phillips.

[Speaker 3] (3:21:41 - 3:21:42)
Wonderful. Yep.

[Speaker 6] (3:21:42 - 3:21:49)
But that would mean we we can't put it at Philips because the park grant is only for Philips. That's right. Another grant.

[Speaker 3] (3:21:50 - 3:21:54)
We've got a specific grant. We can go out and get another grant. We're happy to get grants.

[Speaker 1] (3:21:56 - 3:22:09)
But I just want to understand your question. Like people of all different type of opinions are going to come. Ultimately it's for us to decide whether or not to put it in the war and for town meeting to vote on it.

[Speaker 6] (3:22:09 - 3:22:14)
I just want to make sure we're like I understand those rules.

[Speaker 1] (3:22:15 - 3:23:04)
No I'm just asking because I'm just asking because it's only when you are concerned about something in the negative Mary on that you are hyper concerned about process. So I just want to I'm just going to be clear about this. The stretch code again you're for it but you have no problem with the fact that there hasn't been any process but yet every whether you like pickleball or near every single homeowner in Swampscott is going to be impacted.

It's not about just the town getting money. It's actually about the fact that you know we are making good strides environmentally but but no one understands it because it's so new we will be the 11th community 13th community in Massachusetts 30th 30 30 or 30 of three hundred and fifty one cities and towns to adopt it. So I'm just I'm just been a whole year's long.

But I'm just not in Swampscott. And that's my only point. My point is that process has to be processed whether we're for something or against something.

[Speaker 6] (3:23:04 - 3:23:21)
I don't think there's anybody against pickleball courts. I think that if my question is if people have different recommendations on where to put it how will those recommendations play out and Sean has answered the question for me.

[Speaker 2] (3:23:22 - 3:24:01)
So I motion to I guess we're going off the motion. We don't have to motion because we're not recommending favorable action but the I guess for the public's perspective it is staying in the warrant. There's a public conversation being had and at the end of that public conversation town meeting will vote.

So I just want to explain the steps here so that there's some voice record of that we're just and we're just not we're just not making a recommendation to report on it at a town meeting after public.

[Speaker 5] (3:24:03 - 3:24:22)
I think also there has been work done based on the feedback. As far as I'm aware there have been noise tests done. There's been kind of more information gathered about drainage and other issues that I know I have and other people have.

And I encourage people to come on Thursday to actually hear that update from a lot of great feedback in the neighborhood.

[Speaker 3] (3:24:22 - 3:24:36)
You know again you know we want to be good neighbors. There are a lot of things that folks have come up with like trees and buffers and things that might mitigate some of the noise. So all that is helpful information.

[Speaker 4] (3:24:36 - 3:25:01)
Thanks. Look forward to continue the conversation on Thursday at 6 p.m. Article 9 is an increase to our local rooms excise tax to see if the town will vote to increase the local room occupancy excise tax assessed pursuant to Mass General Law Chapter 64g section 3a from 4% to 6% effective as of July 1 24. So moved.

[Speaker 2] (3:25:01 - 3:25:07)
I'm not a motion that the select board take favorable action. That's what Doug meant to say.

[Speaker 24] (3:25:07 - 3:25:09)
So I will second. All in favor.

[Speaker 1] (3:25:15 - 3:25:22)
So do we do we actually need to take the time meeting warrant for March 11th.

[Speaker 4] (3:25:22 - 3:25:23)
Yep.

[Speaker 24] (3:25:23 - 3:25:24)
All in favor.

[Speaker 4] (3:25:25 - 3:26:10)
Aye. Aye. Thank you.

Yeah just the we do have a there's a agenda item 12 to 24 Pine Street. We were going to discuss and possibly vote on the purchase of that tonight. We received some information late in the afternoon.

We do need some time to review and and dot some I's and cross some T's. So we will we will bring that back in front of the board and in very short order. And as for discussion and possible vote on non-union contracts, we will table that to a future meeting.

And so we'll move on to approval of the consent agenda. I don't think there's anything on this.

[Speaker 2] (3:26:11 - 3:26:12)
No, there's no finish.

[Speaker 4] (3:26:13 - 3:26:14)
Okay. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (3:26:18 - 3:27:03)
I have something to say for select board time. Peter, I want to thank you for all of your hard work and for it with the Hadley that took a lot of hours and a lot of work and you know, I can't stand when people say, but I'm a volunteer, but you're a volunteer and that took a ton of effort. So I really appreciate it.

I also want to thank Joe Dulette and his group for always providing our video here. And I also want to find out from the chairman are where our next meeting is when and because I have a question about the liquor licenses for the clubs where does our next meeting is going to be February the 28th.

[Speaker 4] (3:27:03 - 3:27:12)
So we need to we need to meet to address a bond issue. So I anticipate taking that up at that at that meeting on the 28th.

[Speaker 6] (3:27:12 - 3:27:31)
Okay, and then the I just want to let everybody know that the Board of Health is finalizing their information and their ideas on the opiate. So if anybody has opinions on what to do with the opiate money, please contact them and that's the only committee I'm going to follow up on tonight.

[Speaker 2] (3:27:33 - 3:28:09)
I had another thought about that Hadley list that we were giving. I'd like to add one more thought to it Peter since you were scribing for the public process. I would like us to reach out to the boards and committees and ask for them to have a chance to have an opinion about it.

I know like obviously the tree committee the rec committee. There are lots of committees that touch this the water sewer and I would just like them to have a space to voice their opinion.

[Speaker 23] (3:28:11 - 3:28:12)
Okay. Thanks Katie.

[Speaker 4] (3:28:16 - 3:28:20)
I don't have anything with that I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 6] (3:28:20 - 3:28:22)
So moved. All in favor. Aye.

[Speaker 4] (3:28:23 - 3:28:23)
Thanks everybody.

[Speaker 6] (3:28:24 - 3:28:24)
Thank you.