[Speaker 10] (1:06 - 7:15)
. . .

. .

[Speaker 6] (8:22 - 14:58)
. . .

. . .

[Speaker 5] (15:02 - 15:07)
.

[Speaker 4] (15:27 - 15:37)
.

[Speaker 14] (15:37 - 15:38)
.

[Speaker 16] (15:38 - 15:48)
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] (15:56 - 16:04)
And we'll get started tonight with public comment. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 7] (16:14 - 20:04)
I've got a little laryngitis, so I hope my voice holds out. I'm going to make a few... Sir, name and address, please.

Oh, sorry. Brian Watson, 20 Oak Road. Thank you.

I'm going to make a couple of comments that are a little critical at the beginning, but I'm going to end up with some good thoughts, some constructive thoughts. So I'm a registered architect and have, you know, practiced professionally for 35 years and involved in architecture and planning. So I know what a good planning process looks like.

I've been involved in many planning processes. I was on the town planning board for 10 years, and I was also the town's representative to the Metropolitan Area Planning Council for 22 years. In 13 of those years, I was the chairman of the North Shore Task Force, which is a regional group of 13 towns, and we conducted many public processes, and I'm very familiar with the, quote, the, quote, visioning process.

I say that as a sort of preface because I do feel that the process we have been involved in so far at the Horton site has been really abysmal. I believe it was disjointed and fragmented. I believe it was opaque.

I think the results were very random, and it was just poorly done in so many ways that it would take me a long time to go through them all. Basically, the townspeople, and by the way, I did participate in the public processes along with hundreds of people. The townspeople were never shown a variety of concepts.

They were never taken through an orientation that would show the townspeople what's involved in comparing plans. It was basically three versions of a park plan shown over and over again and without orientation. The fact that the process was bad is completely indicated by the fact that a library from the sky essentially plunked on the town through no process at all, it was not organically, it did not organically come out of the process that was conducted.

I want to emphasize that you engage in a process not for the sake of process. You engage in a process because it allows the town to make a wise choice at the end. There's many people that were involved.

Many people had many ideas. They all need a hearing, and as a town, we draw them up schematically. It doesn't take time.

It doesn't take a consultant. You diagram them, and then it's a process of comparison. It's not one plan at a time.

It's not here. Do you like this? Take it or leave it.

It's a collaborative process, and you compare the plans. And the townspeople who participate learn that the way to choose a plan is by comparing the pros and cons. Every plan will have good points.

Every plan will have bad points. But if you don't do that as a town, if you don't exercise that option, you've short-circuited, you know, you've short-circuited the potential for getting a really good project. The goal is a really good project.

And in the end, the town will rule. The townspeople will rule in the end. But it's a disservice to simply show the town a plan and say, you know, what do you think?

That's premature, and it's out of sequence. Thank you. Can I make one last suggestion to end on a positive note?

So I think the town could have a meeting. It's a select board first. We go through some orientation about what makes a good process.

Then we have the town do that before we start looking at the nitty-gritty of plans. It's very doable. I don't mean to make it sound like it's not doable.

It is, but it takes a little bit of, you know, it takes a little organization. Thank you, Brian.

[Speaker 16] (20:08 - 20:09)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 11] (20:14 - 22:45)
I'm Richard Smith, 55 Thomas Road. I'm a member of the Historical Commission and Historic District Commission, formerly an Open Space Commission, but I decided three committees were too many. So I'm just going to make a few brief comments on the same process, and I would echo some of the comments that Brian has made.

I'd also speak specifically about libraries because I worked on 30-odd public libraries over my career in the architectural world, so I think I understand the library process and what goes into getting a fundable project off the ground. And at the point that we're at right now, in order to do a new public library, we're looking at about ten years probably for the process because it's going to require a new grant round. We're too late to get into the current grant round.

The next one probably is six or seven years out. We've got a programming process that has to involve the public library. So there is a very involved process, and whether it's appropriate to tie up this site for ten years in hopes that we might be able to pull off a library on it, I'm not sure is really going to be a valid course of operations for how to proceed with this site.

I would agree with Brian that I think from my perspective, I feel like a lot of what we've seen so far has really been out of the architectural magazines, and I think we need a broader process, and we need to think about a way to get involvement that lay people can get their hands around more easily. One of the things I've learned in all my years of architectural practice is that most people don't understand plans. You put a plan in front of them, you put out an idea, they look at it, they nod their heads, they try to look like they know what they're seeing, but they haven't been trained.

So I think we need some other means, other approaches that are less architectural to try to get the community more involved and find ways to bring other sorts of images that maybe the public is more easily able to comprehend to kind of restart the process. That's my comments. Thank you.

[Speaker 16] (22:45 - 22:48)
Thank you. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 12] (22:51 - 25:24)
Hi, I'm Art Freeman, 82 Millet Road. I have two comments to make. One is addressing the ARPA funds that'll be discussed tonight.

I'm very pleased that you're going to discuss. Hopefully we'll do something with it. But I think it's a three-stage process here dealing with Fisherman's Beach.

One is trying to use the ARPA funds to get things, if not started, get the ball rolling. And then once we do that, maybe we can discuss the sewage fees that supposedly aren't up to where they should be to help additionally funds. And then I haven't heard anything about grants at all, and I don't even know who would approach for a grant or who does it if it's all helter-skelter in this town or there's some grant writer.

I don't know. I'm being naive about that. So anyway, and the other thing is as far as the Hawthorne Project, I appreciate the effort that's gone into it.

The town has a history of buying properties and really not fulfilling what they were supposed to be used for. I mean, we go back to back when I first came to town, the sewage treatment plant was never done. It was kicked down the road finally.

We didn't have funds and finally had to go join with LEND for that. The other thing is the Bertram House property. We had options to buy that property.

It never got done. We lost that opportunity. It would have been a good opportunity.

And the Temple Israel property, which was bought, oh, we're going to have a police station. We're going to do this and this and this. We only got half the property.

There was a whole bunch not purchased. And then finally we ended up, I would say, probably giving away for a steal to housing. And then finally the Hawthorne property.

It's an asset. It's supposed to be for open space. I think it's important.

There are so many buildings going on in Humphrey Street blocking off the view. It would be nice to have it open, frankly, because I don't know if we need another library. I haven't been to the library myself in years, but from what I hear, a lot of people like the library and its facilities are adequate.

So I think we need to, as mentioned with Brian and the other gentlemen, we need to think about what we really want to do with this space. And I guess there will be a meeting coming up, I think, next month. I'd appreciate it to know when that is.

But I appreciate the efforts of the committee and the board with these projects, but I think a little bit more stepping back and see what we really want to do with this property, because it's a big decision to make. And frankly, the town has not been very good about making decisions about our property we buy. I know we've got the housing project, but that's something else I don't know anything about.

Thank you. Thanks, Art.

[Speaker 9] (25:43 - 28:32)
Hi, my name is Tessia Vassilio. I'm a resident on Lewis Road in Precinct 5, a town meeting member and the chair of the Board of Assessors. Due to the short window of time allowed for public comment, I'd like to direct your attention to the opinion piece from today's Linn item submitted by the Board of Assessors.

During last week's select board meeting, the assessors requested that we be allowed to participate in discussion regarding the proposed Article 23, which would have resulted in changing our board from being elected to appointed. The article was voted down, and while discussion ensued between the town administrator and the select board, the assessors did not have an opportunity to address disparaging statements that were made about us. Therefore, we responded through the item.

I have brought printed copies here for anyone who would like to read it and request that the article and my comments be included in the meeting minutes. I have additional information I'd like to add on my own behalf. First, he's not here, but I'd like to thank select board member Peter Spalios for acknowledging during last week's discussion that Mr. Fitzgerald brought Article 23 forward to address concerns the town administrator has with our board. I believe the Warren article was brought forward with a punitive intention, and this acknowledgement supports my belief. We have had several challenges with town hall over the past few years, and while many of these are rooted in lack of staffing, there has also been questionable behavior. Our town administrator has spread mistruths about me in what I believe to be an attempt to discredit me, and he has not been cooperative in clarifying his understanding of our roles.

Over the past six months, I feel that he and his staff have been trying to intimidate me with passive-aggressive threats, including reminders of state ethics commission fines, as well as the criminal penalties for false valuations. He has also mentioned bringing in town council and has had them join our meetings on occasion. I also feel that I have been pressured to rubber-stamp values.

When I review or question data provided to me for my approval, I am described as being over-involved. When I express my frustration with town hall refusing to follow the board's directive, or I question changes to the values that were never approved by our board, I am described as being demanding. Because I have called out the false presentation of information on a select board member's abatement application and on two separate occasions questioned why the assessed values of certain select board members have decreased or remained stagnant while their neighbors increased, I am accused of targeting select board members.

Last week, Mr. Sveglio stated that having the discussion during the select board board town meeting would not be appropriate. Please be clear that I have nothing to hide and I welcome a public dialogue. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 4] (28:33 - 28:34)
Thank you.

[Speaker 16] (28:40 - 28:41)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 8] (28:50 - 30:47)
Hi. Mike Kelleher, Precinct 4, Pine Hill Road. I want to thank Tasia for her thing, but it's kind of a common theme, because I'm here because of last week's meeting I watched.

And when the library of trustees came up and said they had no discussion about this Hawthorne property, and I hear from Tasia, and I hear from police officers, and I hear from the fire department, that there is just a broken system in our town government and that it's really quite astonishing. So, anyway, I just wanted to make a comment on that and then also say that library proposal, the Hawthorne, I unfortunately was not able to attend those events. I had prior commitments.

I know you said there was a few hundred people there. I don't know when they were. I remember seeing it, but I couldn't make it.

I had a basketball game one day and a work thing the other day. But when you say you have a couple hundred people there from a town of what's our current population? 15,000.

I don't feel that's a fair input on what is a centerpiece of our fantastic town. I love this town. I think it's great.

I think when you pull in from Lynn, coming on Lynn Shore Drive, you see the Hawthorne and you see that whole skyscape, it's like, great, I'm glad to be home. It's a beautiful town. I love being on the water.

And all of a sudden, from that comes a proposal, because you guys are supposed to be stewards of our tax dollars, that we're going to spend $30 million on a library when I haven't heard a word, and the library hadn't heard a word about the deficiencies with the current library. But we're going to spend $30 million and put it on an oceanfront. I don't know of too many oceanfront libraries across the country.

I've never been to one. If you know of any, please let me know. But if we wanted to do that, a friend of mine brought up a great point.

There's this house on Littles Point Road for $5.5 million that just got lowered to. Was that six? It's 9,000 square feet.

What's the square footage of our current library? Do you know, Sean?

[Speaker 2] (30:48 - 30:49)
Not off the top of my head.

[Speaker 8] (30:49 - 31:52)
Is it bigger? 16,000. So we could buy this, which Littles Point is beautiful.

From my boat, this house is magnificent from the water. You could buy this house for $5.5 million. We could probably spend, let's say, $5 million, make it handicap accessible, and then you could put a library there if we really need an oceanfront library.

That's not what I'm suggesting we need, but we could save the taxpayers $20 million. It just doesn't seem to be a good financial stewardship of my taxes when we're coming up with $30 million libraries in one of the most iconic parts of town. And I think we need to take a step back, as some other people have said tonight, and really have a discussion.

I think it should be on the ballot so we actually get to hear from the 14,000 people as to what we're doing, because I think the Hadley Hotel project is a disaster as well. I think it should all be considered, and let's really define our town and take a step back and hear what the townspeople have to say, because I know it's not happening at Town Hall, because the employees there say they're not being listened to. So how are you going to listen to the taxpayers?

Thanks. Have a good night.

[Speaker 16] (31:52 - 31:59)
Thanks. Yes, sir.

[Speaker 14] (32:12 - 33:50)
Ted Kennedy, 83 Magnolia Road, precinct 4 town meeting member. I just wanted to state a few things, and they didn't really read the letter from the item, but I really think when we talk about lacking expertise and experience, let's just go through this. Neil Sheehan, vice chair of the board of assessors, has served on the board for 25 years, serving as chair for at least 10 of those.

Prior to this, he served on the board of assessors in Burlington for 8 years. In total, he has more than 33 years of experience. Dasha, chairman of the board, has been a member for 7 years.

She's been certified real estate appraiser since 2003 and appraised countless homes throughout Massachusetts. She currently works for Mutual Bank, where she orders, reviews, and signs off on all appraisals for commercial loans secured by real estate. Lyra Goodman, secretary of the board, has served on the board for 3 years.

Every board should have a member who brings the voice of the stakeholders to a table. Lyra does that. She is well-informed of property transactions in town, fair-minded, and balanced.

She has served the community at the town meeting member, school PTO president, as an employee at the Jewish Community Center, as a teacher for the Swampskate Recreation Department. I don't know. I really don't know how you can say that they don't have the experience.

It's getting really bad, guys. You have to understand, people are really upset with what's happening with the select board. And it's coming.

Your time's coming. And if you don't get it, and you don't see what's happening, there's going to be issues all over the place. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (33:51 - 34:12)
All right. Seeing no hands in the room, no hands on teams, we will move on. We'll move on to our discussion on town ARPA funds.

[Speaker 2] (34:13 - 40:42)
All right. So I've had a chance to sit down and take a look at some of the recommendations after the board met last week. I'm actually revising some recommendations.

I'm removing the recommendation for the mobile town hall. Even though I still believe a mobile town hall would have its value, I think we need a little bit more time to think that through and balance a few of the other priorities. The town of Andover does have a mobile town hall.

I've looked at that over the last couple of years. I've talked to officials from Andover. They use it for a lot of public engagement opportunities.

And at some point, both our library director and our health department really see that as a great vehicle for bringing government closer to neighborhoods. With that, I'd like to recommend that we advance a project that has been in our capital improvement plan for the last several years. That's an ADA accessible bathroom at Phillips Beach.

Right now, we have porta-potties at Phillips Beach. I think for the most widely used town beach, bringing an accessible restroom and perhaps a snack shack to that beach would be helpful. If anybody has been down there with individuals that are disabled or you see people trying to use a porta-potty on a 100 degree day, it really is an unfortunate situation.

We can help address that. I'm sticking with my recommendation that we allocate $500,000 for pedestrian safety. As we've discussed numerous times over the last year, we have a list of complete street projects that have been previously supported by prior boards, but we have intersections all over the town that need to be addressed.

$500,000 may sound like a lot of money, but frankly, a couple of projects could eat that right up. Another $400,000 for Swampscot parks. We have fences.

We have the need for additional shade and grading at some of the properties. I did reach out to a number of Swampscot coaches over the last week and talked to them about these needs. I do have a list of priorities, and certainly that's a list that far exceeds the $400,000, but both our rec director and assistant town administrator, DPW director, feel as though those dollars would go a long way in addressing a number of important improvements.

I'm recommending $100,000 for historic preservation. This is an opportunity for us to really help support a lot of good work that's happening right now with preservation, but also think about how some of these dollars can help us be more proactive and supporting some of the opportunities to preserve buildings that perhaps we could get ahead of and help support a preservation strategy. I'm recommending $100,000 for a climate action and resiliency manager.

We have completed a climate action report. We have a lot of opportunities to really seek grants and better strategically align a number of resilient initiatives. Another $200,000 for Swamp Street's public housing redevelopment feasibility study.

We have talked a lot about affordable housing, but the affordable housing that we currently have at our housing authority is inadequate. There's not a unit that is ADA compliant, and frankly, we need to be a stronger partner with our housing authority and address some of those challenges. I'm recommending $100,000 for a town-wide economic development study.

As I've mentioned numerous times, we can't just cut our way out of problems. We have to make investments in Vinden Square. We have to make investments on Humphrey Street and the MBTA neighborhood.

There's no time like the present to really advance a project like this. We have all sorts of synergies happening, and this is the time to really bring a planning effort around economic development. After a number of discussions with town staff, but consultants, I'm recommending $50,000 to advance some work as part of the Fisherman's Beach illicit discharge and detection elimination, or our MS4 work.

This would help us pick up about two months' worth of effort to identify a scope of work of $1.7 million that could help us prioritize ways that we can protect infiltration and inflow onto Fisherman's Beach. I'm also recommending $200,000 for resiliency projects. These are projects that are in our plans, but also can help us look at some strategic grants and help match grants that currently we're looking at.

Lastly, $121,555 for public health programs. Our public health department, board of health, have advanced recommendations for public health programs to address long COVID and mental health and some of the broader public health responsibilities. We have slide decks and all sorts of initiatives with regional public health programs, and this would help support a critical need that we have as a community.

[Speaker 6] (40:43 - 41:02)
Mr. Chairman? I'd like to make a motion to spend $1.7 million of the ARPA money on Fisherman's Beach. Sewer problems and $182,000 on the MS-4 permit.

[Speaker 5] (41:04 - 41:05)
I'll second that motion.

[Speaker 4] (41:07 - 41:11)
Do we want to have additional discussion? Absolutely.

[Speaker 6] (41:11 - 43:21)
I'd like to follow up on why I want to go ahead. By putting this ARPA money towards these two critical projects, we'll be doing a few things. We've taken care of a problem that we haven't put any money in for four years.

We've known we've had a serious problem in the Fisherman's Beach area for four years when we filed the SRF grant application. This is a way to get work started right away and to give relief to the ratepayers, which are also our taxpayers. This gives equity and relief across the entire town.

We took care of a survey. We sent out a survey. The survey was very clear.

A large percentage of people want this money put into the infrastructure. The finance committee weighed in three years ago. The finance committee was unanimous.

They wanted the money into the infrastructure. They actually said, give Gino the entire $4 million. The new committee that we have, the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Committee recommended that we use this ARPA money to immediately begin work on the Fisherman's Beach area sewer problems.

I just don't see how spending money on these different issues here is an actual necessity compared to what we have here. As much as I've listened to people on this board say, let the ratepayers pay it, to roll in almost $3 million onto the ratepayers in one shot, when we have the ability to put just short of $2 million immediately in, it will give relief to everybody. I really even want to stop constantly having to talk about ARPA.

I'd rather pull the trigger and make this work.

[Speaker 1] (43:26 - 45:36)
I have a very substantially different perspective on this. I definitely want to fix the pipes, but I don't think this is the right way to do it through ARPA. There are a number of different ways you can fix the pipes, but there's only one way you can do all the rest of these things.

Because you can't do these things through a state revolving fund, which is set up to fix the pipes. We have a sewer enterprise fund set up to fix the pipes. But you can't do any of these things through a sewer enterprise fund.

That's why we call it a sewer enterprise fund, is for the sewers, and we haven't been spending enough. Sean talked about that last week. We haven't been spending enough.

Everyone can go back and say, yeah, exactly. You screwed up, you screwed up, you screwed up. Okay, we screwed up.

Whatever. We are here right now. We have an option to do this a couple different ways.

I can't speak for everyone, but I believe everyone wants to get going on fixing the pipes. That's not really an issue here. I think we really have a very subtle difference about financing mechanisms.

What are the options for doing different financing mechanisms? I had a feeling that we would need to get into this conversation tonight, so I came prepared with some markers. If you'll indulge me, I'd like to make sure that as a beginning to this conversation, we're at least all dealing with the same deck.

Feel free, if someone wants to go ahead and talk while I'm writing, that's fine. I just want to make sure people have the full picture of what's going on here. Doug, you might need to grab your microphone.

So we can hear you. I'll write first. I can try.

I'll have to use the other board then, Wayne.

[Speaker 3] (45:37 - 47:17)
I think I've seen this guy on YouTube. I recognize the back of the head. I would never say that.

[Speaker 1] (47:29 - 51:27)
I just wanted to set the table for King's. The main event here is about fishermen. I just wanted to set the table about King's because I think some people care about that too.

If I'm understanding this correctly, we've spent $6.5 million so far on King's Beach alone. We can't say we haven't spent anything. We can't say it hasn't been as much as some of us would like in the last year or two.

Work has been doing. We've been doing work until within the last year. We didn't allocate money recently, but work has been happening until last year, if I understand correctly.

In 2024, this calendar year, we've got two main things going on. We've got this MS4, which there's money in the capital budget already for that, so I'm not sure why we have to pull it out of the capital budget to put it in ARPA. That's $182,000.

That's MS4. That's outflows. I won't pretend to know all the details of that.

Liz, anyone else here can get the details. We have dozens of outflows that we actually have to keep track of all over town. This is a required thing for us to do.

I doubt anyone has an issue with us doing that. We can decide, again, whether or not we've got three different funding sources for that. You could do Sewer Enterprise Fund.

You could do capital. You could do ARPA. But, again, I can't do a housing redevelopment feasibility study out of the Sewer Enterprise Fund.

Also in 2024, which the work that's happening right now, that this board voted on, $400,000 out of the ARPA, the $2.5 million ARPA, that work is already happening. IDDE, testing, sampling. Phase 2, this is happening throughout the year.

Unfortunately, some of us wish that would get done faster, but it looks like it can't. It's going to take basically the whole year to get that done. Once that's done, then we'll be able to bid that work out to actually do the cleaning of the pipes.

That's going to happen in the beginning, basically, of next year. Month, two, whatever to do it. When can they actually start the work?

March? Something like that. Then we get into actual source elimination.

That's Phase 2A. This board already voted $1.7 million out of that $2.5 million to actually do that work. For King's Beach, for the next two years, we've got money lined up, basically, to do the work.

Maybe I put this a little off-center. If that money runs out a little earlier, this board already voted, and the work is already underway to prepare an application for a state revolving fund loan of at least $2.5 million. We already voted to do that.

That process is in place. That will go in in August. It'll get approved in the beginning of next year.

May town meeting. The town meeting would have to approve the bonding that goes along with it. Extremely low-interest loan.

That would carry us well into, maybe throughout 2026. For King's Beach, I just want to start with that. I see a couple head nods.

Make sure we're all on the same page. I think we're doing basically everything we can for King's Beach right now. You could allocate more money now, and this is actually counter to what the town administrators proposed, another $1.8 million. I frankly don't even see the need for that right now. Maybe we get another year down the road, and maybe that makes sense, but I frankly don't see the need. Maybe I should just pause there and see if, from the board's perspective, if I've misrepresented anything or any questions.

I have a question.

[Speaker 6] (51:27 - 51:30)
What about fishermen? That's where I'm going next.

[Speaker 3] (52:40 - 53:12)
What's on the left-hand side? Left side.

[Speaker 1] (53:14 - 55:41)
Sorry? $1.7 million. Thank you.

So, on fishermen's, we haven't done anything yet. We have to do the same MS work for fishermen. That's part of the $182,000 capital.

It's already in the proposed capital budget. We have a $1.7 million shovel-ready project ready to do for fishermen. This will actually be source elimination work because we already basically know where the work needs to be done because of an analysis that was done a couple of years ago.

So I think we're all in agreement that we need $1.7 million in order to get going on the work of fishermen. The real question comes in just what's your funding source in order to do that? The initial assessment was that maybe that's all we need in fishermen.

I think maybe we're, a lot of people might be skeptical that that will be the end of what we'll need for fishermen. We don't know. But we'll get in there.

We'll start doing the work. In 2025, in the middle of the year, in parallel with what we're doing for King's, and you can pull this SRF loan back, this would be the source for continuing to finish the work of fishermen. Okay?

So maybe a lot of that's obvious, and just everyone's on the same page about it, but I just wanted to make sure that in everything that we're doing, one, there's a lot that's happened. King's is, I think, well-oiled machine, basically, for a couple years. And as fishermen, I think we all agree what work needs to be done, about how much needs to happen, and that we've got additional sources in the pipeline that we can use past the $1.7 million. And out of all of this, just to try to kind of bring us together, the only question is what we use to fund it. So. Yep.

Questions?

[Speaker 5] (55:42 - 56:10)
I do have some questions. I'll come back to it. So I guess the commentary about being a well-oiled machine doesn't really sit well with me, since the federal and state partners are saying we're not.

So I guess if your perception is we are, then explain to me and others how those two disparities exist at the same time.

[Speaker 1] (56:11 - 56:13)
Well, because we're not here, yet.

[Speaker 5] (56:15 - 56:19)
Well, I think you're saying at King's Beach, we're basically a well-oiled machine.

[Speaker 1] (56:20 - 56:30)
We've got things in the pipeline to do all the work we can possibly do, funding source-wise and scope of work-wise, for the next couple years.

[Speaker 5] (56:30 - 56:32)
So why is the EPA having an issue with us?

[Speaker 1] (56:32 - 56:41)
I'm not in conversation with the EPA. I'm not sure if they completely, exactly understand this, but I can imagine they might have an issue with that.

[Speaker 2] (56:44 - 59:32)
So I am happy to kind of give my perspective. I've been in a number of meetings with the EPA. I think they've been clear.

They want us to be more aggressive. That's the word that they've used. My recommendations are to add some additional funding this year to actually be more aggressive.

It's clear that everybody is a little bit disappointed with the results of the consent decree that said that we should model how we were going to do our work under the consent decree after a community that wasn't on the ocean. It was a community that actually was in southern Massachusetts. And we didn't get the results over the last six years that we thought we would get.

It's been frankly disappointing. It's the reason why a couple of years ago we decided to pull together state and local officials at Swanscot Town Hall and we said, something's not working the way we wanted it to. How can we look at supplemental strategies?

So we were able to get some funding to start looking at other things. That said, we've always made a commitment that we were going to stay on point and look at ways that we can comply with the Clean Water Act, which is essentially MS4. We have to do that every year.

We have to go inspect pipes. We have to chase down discharges and detection and eliminate it. We're getting better at that.

And we're in a number of contract cycles. Things are starting to get routine. But it's coming with a commitment that the town is going to be more aggressive and the state is going to be more aggressive and the federal government is going to be more aggressive as we seek to find alternative strategies, supplemental strategies, that will help us have a level of confidence that these resources are going to be safe for future generations.

I know it's frustrating to a lot of people because everybody wants to fix these problems. There's nobody that wants to wait longer than we should. But, frankly, for the better part of a hundred years, we haven't really supported these responsibilities.

Over the last few years, we've focused on school buildings. We've focused on municipal finance. And we've focused on other needs.

And, frankly, we haven't been able to balance all these priorities effectively. We're starting to get there, though. And I think these plans, these funding plans, you know, it's important that we do it in a way that it helps us balance all the other priorities that we have, too.

[Speaker 1] (59:32 - 1:00:23)
And, Sean, I mean, I just... I'm not sure whether or not... We've taken steps, this board, in the last few months that are relatively new news to EPA.

I'm not sure if they actually see it this clearly. Like, I'm not sure... In my conversations and in our meetings with Gino, I'm not sure how much more work you can actually do on the pipes next year than this, with a contractor, in a certain amount of time.

If we can do more, great. I'm not opposed to that, but I do feel like this is a very kind of prudent, fiscally responsible, active process that we have going at King's Beach. I totally agree that the bigger gaping hole, right now, from a planning and resource allocation, is on fishermen's.

So... I've said my piece.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:24 - 1:00:35)
So, I guess, if we allocated $2.1 million of ARPA to King's Beach and Fisherman's Beach projects, are you saying Gino couldn't spend it?

[Speaker 1] (1:00:35 - 1:00:39)
That's my understanding... Well, I would... King's?

I'm not so sure.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:41 - 1:01:26)
Um... I'd have to check with Gino, but, you know, frankly, he has expressed concern about, you know, the volume of work, and how to schedule that and coordinate it. We're a small town, three square miles, I mean, there's a lot of disruption when we rip through neighborhoods we're actually going through, and we're creating quite a bit of disruption with this type of work.

And so, you know, he does want to have a strategic kind of plan, and we want to coordinate it. You know, we have to do it during construction months that are supportable, so it's better for us to kind of align this from a fiduciary standpoint to get the maximum value for some of these dollars.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:27 - 1:02:31)
So, I think we can come back and tweak and add and take another vote if we feel like there's more we can do on King's. You know, with kind of fine-tuning that, what's the capacity in that area to do that? You know, this is a lot of work.

A lot more work in one year if you do both of these things. Forget about what the funding source is. It's a lot more work than I'm aware of has ever been done in this town in one year.

And there was some reason that, you know, had a certain amount of work in the past. I can't speak definitively to say that's absolutely the max, and you couldn't do it, but again, I think the only, at least the beginning quibble or important distinction to start off with in order for us to actually address this ARPA issue is why not use a sewer enterprise fund, especially if I'm understanding, David, did you say something? What's the deal with state revolving funds and whether or not this, what's the state thinking about that?

[Speaker 4] (1:02:31 - 1:03:24)
No, I've had a number of conversations with Representative Armini. Representative Armini encouraged the town of Swampskate to use state revolving funds. She said please use the state revolving funds.

The interest rate is advantageous for one, and two, there's also the potential for loan forgiveness from the state. So I can't quantify what that number is, but that was mentioned to me in a meeting. Loan forgiveness.

Use the state revolving funds. Do that. Include that in your funding sources.

Please do that. That was at the encouragement of Representative Armini, and I think it's a great use of funds, especially if there's any potential for any type of forgiveness aspect from the state.

[Speaker 6] (1:03:25 - 1:04:09)
So the using the Enterprise Fund is a great idea. However, we have ARPA money that is a federal grant that people have paid into that we can use right away, and people are not being taxed on it. The Enterprise Fund means that we're paying for it.

It's not like there's money sitting in there. It means that we're going to bond it, and we're going to pay it. Taxpayers are going to pay it.

Your question as far as these other projects, these other projects can be funded through capital. You can put them in capital, and the capital committee can decide whether or not they're a good idea. Finance committee can decide.

Select board can decide. But there are other ways to pay for this.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:10 - 1:04:10)
Some of them, maybe.

[Speaker 6] (1:04:12 - 1:04:13)
Every one of them could be paid for.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:14 - 1:04:36)
So when we talk about infrastructure, there certainly is an aspect of water and sewer infrastructure, but there's also just infrastructure. ADA bathrooms at Phillips Beach. That is infrastructure.

That's beach infrastructure. That is something that individuals need. That is a need.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:36 - 1:04:57)
When you're talking about infrastructure, you mean on the questionnaire, when people filled out the questionnaire and answered that they wanted to see the money go into infrastructure. Obviously, I'm not a soothsayer. I don't know what people thought when they were filling out that document, but I don't think they thought they were filling it out for beaches at Phillips Beach.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:57 - 1:05:43)
That has been on our capital plan. That has been something that we have been discussing for a number of years. Also, too, a number of these other initiatives are something where we can plant acorns, and we can be multiplicative, and we can invest today for results tomorrow.

Looking at a climate action and resiliency manager, that's someone who can come... I don't think any of us are in disagreement that we are a coastal community in need of resiliency, in need of resiliency investments, in need of having leadership to apply for grants so that we can do more. We haven't done...

And it'll be a very positive ROI.

[Speaker 6] (1:05:43 - 1:05:49)
Yes. My understanding is we can't pay for personnel out of ARPA. Is that different?

[Speaker 2] (1:05:50 - 1:05:54)
That's going to have to be revenue replacement. We're going to have to...

[Speaker 6] (1:05:55 - 1:05:57)
Revenue replacement?

[Speaker 2] (1:05:59 - 1:06:06)
We'll have to budget for that and just use that as revenue for the town.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:06 - 1:06:17)
But if we already have $182K in capital for the MS4, why wouldn't we just pay for that out of ARPA and you could take $100K out of capital to pay for this?

[Speaker 1] (1:06:19 - 1:07:06)
This in some ways illustrates the point. It's like, you can only do that if you're using the sewer enterprise fund to do that. Once you start, you're limiting yourself in terms of your financial flexibility when you use ARPA for this infrastructure.

Because ARPA is more flexible than the sewer enterprise fund is. And going back to the survey that people are quoting from three years ago, well, newsflash, we've committed $5 million to infrastructure since that survey. So I don't think that we can actually quote a survey from three years ago and think that we understand what people would answer now in terms of what the priority should be.

[Speaker 6] (1:07:06 - 1:07:07)
So maybe we should send out another survey.

[Speaker 5] (1:07:08 - 1:07:14)
Also, that's not what I was doing. I was saying when people filled in that bubble, I don't think they thought we were talking about pillars.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:15 - 1:07:20)
We were quoting that fact that there was a survey and that people said they wanted infrastructure and that was a long time ago.

[Speaker 4] (1:07:21 - 1:09:55)
But also, let's go back to making investments and talking about housing. Talking about the investment that we can make with a Swampscot public housing redevelopment feasibility study. I was at a recent Swampscot Housing Authority board meeting and they voted unanimously to support a redevelopment plan.

They want our help. They need our help. To date, the town has invested zero.

Virtually no money in anything to do with the Swampscot public housing. These are Swampscot residents. These are 120 some odd units within the three campuses.

None of the units are ADA accessible. Nothing has been built in the town within the last 65, 70 years. $200,000 is a pretty substantial amount of money.

However, this could potentially return tens of millions of dollars in state funds to build new, state-of-the-art accessible housing from the state for Swampscot residents. This has the opportunity to really be multiplicative and to bear fruit. Mary Ellen, you made a point about relief from rates.

We have some of the lowest sewer rates of any of our peer communities. That shows that we have not invested historically in these sewer projects. I think Doug did a great job of outlining the funds, the funding sources, and I think we have the opportunity here tonight to really make a number of investments across the board in infrastructure and in investing in our town that will allow us to really see these small investments and large investments bear fruit in tens of millions of dollars as we move forward.

Nothing is going to be quick. Nothing is going to be solved tomorrow or the next day, but we do need to start. We do need to start the work, and I think all of us are committed to making sure that these King's Beach and Fisherman's Beach projects are funded appropriately.

I think we're just talking funding sources. I do think that the return on these investments is greater than the savings from bonding or from using state revolving funds.

[Speaker 5] (1:09:55 - 1:10:08)
I think that the other thing that's important here is to understand that this is not the totality of fixing these problems. There's a lot more millions of dollars after these dollars than those dollars.

[Speaker 6] (1:10:09 - 1:10:12)
It's going to keep coming and coming to catch up.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:12 - 1:10:33)
To me, we absolutely are going to be using sewer enterprise funds. We're absolutely going to be using SRF loans, but if we don't have to start using them right now, we should keep that tool in our pocket. Absolutely, we should use it, and if we can keep spending it, we could be getting Gino more money to keep spending.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:34 - 1:10:39)
That's true, if that's the only issue that exists in this town.

[Speaker 5] (1:10:39 - 1:10:41)
It's not the only issue that exists in this town.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:42 - 1:11:40)
It feels to me like we are in an incredibly blessed position here. We actually have an opportunity to do right by Kings Beach, do right by fishermen, and do right by all these other interests that are represented by these projects, all at the same time. We should be jumping for joy right now.

We can actually make our beaches better, make our streets safer, make our parks better, preserve our historic resources, deal with climate change, make our public housing better, improve the economic development of our town, make it more resilient, we could be sitting, we should be sitting, it seems to me like this is an amazing moment where we should be like, hallelujah, we can do it all. I mean, this is just like, but if you say no, we have to do pipes through ARPA, then all this goes...

[Speaker 5] (1:11:40 - 1:11:47)
It does though. Where does it go? Why wouldn't you just put it into the capital budget?

You budget for it.

[Speaker 6] (1:11:47 - 1:12:14)
You have conversations. These are nice-to-haves. We have a crisis at Fisherman's.

We've been listening to it. We listen to it week after week after week, and we have people that are concerned about running their recreational activities at the beaches. We have citizens that are very, very upset.

We have not taken care of fishermen. We have the EPA on our backs.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:14 - 1:12:34)
And we're talking about taking care of fishermen. It's not a question of taking care of fishermen. That's not the issue.

All we're talking about is financing. And I would have to say that people living in substandard housing, public housing, is just as important as a dirty beach. In fact, people are living there every single day.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:34 - 1:12:35)
How much is that, $200?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:36 - 1:12:40)
Swampscott residents. That's important. The fact that our climate...

[Speaker 6] (1:12:40 - 1:12:41)
But there's still money there.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:41 - 1:12:47)
There's still money there. It's only here. It's not anywhere else.

Right?

[Speaker 6] (1:12:48 - 1:12:54)
I only... I didn't ask for $2.1. I asked for $1.8, so there's still money left.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:55 - 1:12:59)
Sure. You're going to take $2.1 million and condense it into $300,000.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:59 - 1:13:01)
I didn't ask for $2.1. Well, that's what I'm saying.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:01 - 1:13:02)
But you got $300,000...

[Speaker 6] (1:13:02 - 1:13:07)
I asked for $1.882. So there's more money. So you could use it for that.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:08 - 1:13:12)
Yes. You could pick one of these things. Yes.

You'd have that much left over. I understand that.

[Speaker 5] (1:13:13 - 1:13:50)
I mean, yes. Sometimes you have to make really tough decisions with the money you have left. I'm not saying any of this isn't wonderful things that we should absolutely be trying to fund.

I'm not saying that none of these aren't recommendations. To be honest, even as crazy as it is in the Mobile Town Hall, it has extreme community benefits. I'm not saying any of this we should just throw the baby out with the bath water.

That is not what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is these things have to be budgeted for, they have to be prioritized, and maybe you can't have them all at once.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:51 - 1:13:52)
Or we can.

[Speaker 6] (1:13:52 - 1:14:06)
I have a quick question. On the ADA bathroom, that has been on our capital plan, and when I followed up to ask why we weren't working on that, I was told that we couldn't build in that zone because it was either AE or AV.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:07 - 1:14:30)
We have looked at how to site that bathroom, but we might have to work with some budding properties. There's a way to do it. We've looked at moving it out more towards the roadway.

Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:14:32 - 1:14:39)
Because I was in support of it, I voted for it, and I'm just telling you what I've been told from the planning board.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:40 - 1:14:47)
We're aware of the sensitive wetlands, and there's a way for us to kind of advance that.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:52 - 1:14:59)
Peter, I'm not sure when you came in. We're actually in discussion phase. Mary Ellen made a motion.

I'm not sure if you're aware of that.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:00 - 1:15:06)
Mary Ellen made a motion that was seconded by Katie, and then we discussed this for the last... What's the motion?

[Speaker 6] (1:15:07 - 1:15:21)
The motion is to spend $1.7 million on Fishman's and $182 million on the MS-4 apartment. Motion seconded by Katie.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:22 - 1:15:25)
Okay. Do we have further discussion from the board?

[Speaker 5] (1:15:26 - 1:15:50)
I do have a point of information, as you just said. Some of these projects are not detailed, so I'm not sure which resilience projects you're looking to pay for or what just says public health, $121,000. And then if we could just explain into a little bit more detail.

But then also, what about the opioid money?

[Speaker 6] (1:15:51 - 1:15:57)
Oh, they're still working on it. The health department is still working on opioid money. And there could be.

[Speaker 5] (1:15:58 - 1:16:01)
The public health money, I just thought maybe could come.

[Speaker 2] (1:16:03 - 1:17:11)
So, both our public health director and our public health nurse have proposed a number of initiatives for public health. They range from outreach efforts to address long COVID. Individuals that seem to be addressing or facing some health issues related to COVID illnesses to mental health issues.

We know that we have significant uptick in mental health concerns. We've recently reached out to the Marblehead Health Center. There's opportunities for us to have additional services and programs that would help support Swanscot residents.

So, certainly there's slide decks that we have that kind of go over some of these recommendations and happy to get into some of the additional details. But our public health nurse and our public health director have strong recommendations for some of these programs.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:12 - 1:17:16)
I'm sorry. Can you read your motion again? I'm sorry.

I just want to make sure I understand it.

[Speaker 6] (1:17:17 - 1:17:32)
So, my motion is to spend $1.7 million of ARPA money into the sewer work at Fisherman's and 182 on the MS-4 permit.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:34 - 1:17:52)
Thank you. Additional comments, questions from the board? All right.

We have a motion. We have a second. We can go to a vote.

All in favor of Mary Ellen's motion? Aye. Opposed?

Opposed. Aye. Opposed.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:54 - 1:18:43)
Motion fails. So, I'd like to make an alternative motion. Actually, probably two of them.

The first would be I don't have it written down or anything. Do you want to use the light board? I ran out of gas with that.

So, the first would be that we commit to doing $1.7 million of work at Fisherman's funded through the sewer enterprise fund. And I don't know the technicalities, frankly, but that's the gist of it.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:44 - 1:19:07)
So, when we talk about the capital plan tonight, there's a recommendation in the capital plan. We've got a revised recommendation that we support that. And if the board supports that recommendation, the capital improvement committee will meet Monday.

The finance committee will meet soon after. And then it will get presented to town meeting. So, that's the process.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:09 - 1:19:23)
So, then, I would make a motion to support the proposed ARPA recommendations that we have in front of us here as stated.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:23 - 1:19:31)
Do I have a second? I'm sorry. Do you mind just stating what they are?

Or do we have it to put it on the board or something?

[Speaker 1] (1:19:32 - 1:19:54)
I don't know if we have it to project. Sean did read it out earlier. Okay.

And I just read them off, kind of, too. So, that's the motion to support the recommendations as stated in front of us for the use of ARPA funding.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:56 - 1:26:27)
Do I have a motion? Do I have a second? I'll second to allow conversation.

If you don't mind, I'd like to start. Go ahead. I was thinking about our resiliency conversation last week, and we were talking, going back and forth between whether or not we should raise walls at the Eisman's, or just build more sea walls.

No, we should raise them. No, we shouldn't raise them. We should build more.

And then all of us got an email 24 hours later from a resident who knows more about resiliency than we will ever know, who pointed out why raising beach walls at Eisman's doesn't do anything. And he sent us maps, he sent us information, he sent us technology, he sent us data that showed us that you can go ahead and raise Eisman to be 20 feet tall. It doesn't matter the water's going to go around it because the vast majority of beaches in that basin sea walls are private.

So it'll make us feel good. It'll make us feel like we really did something. But we'll have done nothing, right?

And that struck me, and that stayed with me, because I'm not a resiliency person, but I just want Doug to get up and write a board about resiliency. Like, what have we done in resiliency? Why is it that we don't speak with the urgency of what we know is coming?

Why do we let people stand up or sit at this table and say things like, the pier doesn't go underwater when we have storms, or it's okay if we don't have a pier, or if it breaks down, or we do things. We say that and then we just move on. So that doesn't itself present just a huge issue to this town.

We don't need a board. We can do in double digits the amount of money that we spent in resiliency. So, right, there's another failing.

The select board's awful. We're awful. Town staff, you're awful.

There is no shortage of things that we have to do, and we have to at every avenue do them in parallel tracks. I appreciate you talking about, David, you talking about the housing authority and people will say, well, it's the housing authority. That's not town.

That's actually a different entity. That's actually a state entity. That's not town money.

The town didn't subsidize those. The town doesn't take care of those. The town has no legal obligation whatsoever to those properties.

It's just called the Swampscot Housing Authority. Except for the fact that we have 150 residents plus living in places that I guarantee no one in this room would want to live. The fact that no one comes up with public comment and says, at a meeting, housing authority, housing authority, housing authority, or no one comes up and says resiliency, resiliency, resiliency, or doesn't come and say we need more affordable housing, or heck, I've been the one showing up saying pedestrian safety, pedestrian safety, pedestrian safety.

The fact that they don't show up. The fact that someone in the audience pounds on the table when they like what one select person says. That's not the reason we do things.

It just can't be the reason we do things. It is hard. We would love to please everybody here.

Tell us your issue. Put it in a box. We'd love to do it all.

Tell us which one it is. We have to... No one here is wrong with their priorities.

No one is. You're right. No one here is wrong with priorities.

We put more money into the sewer infrastructure than anything else in the infrastructure in the town of Swampscott on the town side in the last decade. More money in sewer infrastructure. We just did, and I just can't see how we're going to just, because we're not going to We have one item right now that needs money.

Honestly, Doug, I appreciate you doing this. I don't think anybody's ever done that. It's on the wall there.

I don't know about all these projects on this list. I'm not validating everything on this list here, but I also want to empower staff to be doing these things because staff needs to be doing these things. Because none of us have the handle of what everybody wants.

Right? No matter how hard we hit the table or speak out, none of us do. Our jobs are the suckiest in the sense that we have to balance all these things.

No one here is wrong. Mary Ellen's not wrong. Katie, you're not wrong.

Doug's not wrong. Sean, I'm not wrong. We all have things.

I just think as though we've got to Again, I don't know about some of these, but I trust town staff to advance it. I appreciate the focus on resiliency more than any on this issue here. This weekend, someone at a soccer game came up to me and said, that same bench was broken last year, too.

Gino, I think, fixed it, but apparently it probably needs to be really fixed. I was like, well, who do I call? People always come up to us.

You guys get people like that, too, saying this fence is wrong, this dog do here as if you're going to turn around and pick up the dog do. That's okay. I'm okay with that.

Sometimes we do. This is the second time they come to the bench. I was like, last year I knew who did.

I actually texted Sean the picture, and he sent it to Gino. Gino's just trying to do the best he can. I'm saying duct tape.

It's not really duct tape, but we're just trying to do those things. I've never seen in our time here where we're actually going to say, hey, let's put several hundred thousand dollars to making just repair and maintenance to parks to make them safe. Things that have just fallen out of safety.

Fences that no longer have the metal rod on top of them, so you literally have metal fence on. Things like that. This isn't a perfect list.

I'm not saying it's a perfect list, but I agree with Doug in his presentation of the fact that we are taking care of business and do have a plan in place. It's not a perfect plan. It's not going to be nearly fast enough to do it, but none of these are fast enough.

We're in 2024, and we haven't spent more than $100,000 on resiliency as a seaside community. You want to talk about being behind? I'd give anything for those dollars on resiliency.

Any of them. Give me 10% of the dollars. We're a seaside community, and we've done nothing.

I appreciate, Doug, you making the motion you made. And with that, I will be voting capably for it.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:30 - 1:26:43)
Additional thoughts, comments? Kitty, you asked a question about resiliency. I don't know if I'm recalling correctly.

I don't know if that was something that you were asking for an actual answer for or not.

[Speaker 5] (1:26:44 - 1:26:51)
I think it's important, if the motion carries, that people know what we're spending the other funds on. I think it's important that we discuss it.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:52 - 1:31:03)
This is the same thing that we talked about last week, just as a refresher. There was some discussion then about whether or not this would go in capital or not. I think, Sean, it seems like you've sorted things out between this and capital.

The point of this is that there's been a multi-party group working for the last couple months through what our resiliency efforts need to be. We know we have vulnerabilities all along our coastline, from Kings all the way up to Preston. With probably, and maybe some people will quibble depending on where they live, but maybe the biggest probably of fishermen's to eismen's.

Although I'm sure people at Kings that get flooded there will feel as though that's very critical, and I certainly appreciate that too. So, we've been meeting with Marzee, with Kleinfelder, meeting with Coastal Zone Management, with the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness folks, and really trying to get input from them about grants we've done in the past that we've been successful with and not successful with, and how do we actually move this forward, and it's very competitive, as you can imagine. We're not the only seaside town, and there's limited funds, so there's got to be very competitive here.

So, without getting into all the nitty gritty, we've come to a consensus, I think a strong consensus, that we need to update our models. The last time we did this was in 2016, the famous Kleinfelder Coastal Climate Change Report. There's new models that didn't take into consideration various things, didn't take into consideration precipitation models, so we're bringing all of that together under a proposal that will come before the Select Board next Wednesday, because it definitely will be a grant over $50,000 in the new policy, and they would basically look at, in detail, what are all the different resiliency mitigation strategies we can take everything from out in the water, the living reef idea, to higher walls, to closable gates, to raising roads, to managed retreat, all of these things will be on the table.

Nothing will be off the table. And the state, just as kind of a heads up to everyone, the state is leaning more and more and more towards, you've got to think towards 2050, you've got to think towards 2070, you've got to think that the seas are getting higher, no matter what you do about keeping the temperature down to 1.5 degrees Celsius, seas are going to get higher. I know some people here have been saying this to me very clearly, and don't come back to us with some tinkering, because we're not going to basically fund you if you tinker.

We need big strategic moves, thinking long-term about the people that live right along the water. It's not so clear that's going to be a viable strategy for 30 years, 40 years from now. So that's the scope of what we need to look at in all ways.

Community input, engagement is a big piece of this. The businesses, the residents that live in that area, it's going to be a major, major outreach to folks there. Outreaching to the regulators to understand what is really feasible as part of this process, and ideally, after another year and a half, getting this grant, and if we get the grant, we're not going to need $200,000.

This is basically to say, we have to do this work no matter what. Ideally, we get the grant that pays for the vast majority of it. If it doesn't, we have the money allocated to do the work no matter what.

Ideally, we get the grant, and it frees up some money, but that's kind of the general gist of what this money would be devoted toward.

[Speaker 3] (1:31:04 - 1:33:14)
I just want to add one thing. I've had a chance to go on to some of the state meetings just to listen to how they're talking about it. For the first time ever, the state is talking about losing land to flooding, meaning affirmative policy decisions to say, we can't flood abate this, so therefore, we're going to spend the money on relocating people.

I just want to say that again. In Massachusetts, the state is finally talking about the fact that there are certain areas that no matter what they do, what we do, the cost benefit analysis doesn't merit the investment that it's time to relocate. There are portions of our town that are low-lying.

I'm just saying that we've got to get ahead of this, and it's not just talk. Talk to people in Revere about whether they think it's just talk. Go to Revere and talk to residents in Revere today about whether they think the state is just talk about it, because it's a real live discussion in communities, and we're not exempt from it.

The fact that we were talking about the fish house the other week when we talked about the pier, and I think I meant, well, we're going to have to raise the pier, and all of a sudden, there was a gasp. Not raise the pier, raise the fish house. We're going to have to raise the fish house.

There was a gasp. You're not going to raise the fish house. You're just going to build a wall around it.

No, we're going to be raising the fish house. If you want the fish house to stay, there isn't a resiliency person around that's going to tell us something different. Do I know that for certain?

No. High probability, yeah. We're raising the fish house.

Not romantic. It doesn't fit our vision. It doesn't fit what we want.

We love the fish house where it is as is and stuff like that, but there's certain realities that we have to grow to accept. We need outside resources to help us to grow to accept these things, because they are foreign to us. We are not.

When Neil Duffy was on the board, we were lucky to have one of the best in the state sitting on a board with us, but we don't have that. We need those resources, because that is the future. It's just a question of how we want to deal with it and when we want to deal with it.

I'd rather deal with it before the fish house is half in the Atlantic Ocean. I think, Doug, that's what you're talking about here. It's a small down payment.

This doesn't do anything. I don't want to get anybody comfortable with $200,000 for resiliency, but it unleashes all the other stuff that we don't even know what it is. You've been very focused on it since your arrival here, so I appreciate that.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:17 - 1:33:30)
Additional comments, questions? Okay. We can move to a vote on the motion from Mr. Thompson, seconded by Mr. Spellios. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

[Speaker 5] (1:33:30 - 1:33:31)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:32 - 1:33:39)
Motion carries. We'll move on to the Town Warrant.

[Speaker 5] (1:33:40 - 1:33:42)
Is there not a second motion made by Mr. Thompson?

[Speaker 1] (1:33:43 - 1:33:46)
I kind of passed on that, because we deal with it in the Capitol.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:50 - 1:33:54)
We'll move on to the Town Warrant for May 20th, 2024.

[Speaker 3] (1:33:56 - 1:34:13)
Can I ask what is our meeting schedule between now and the time that we have to close the warrant, just so we know what level of closure are we trying to bring? I think the answer is, whatever we can close, that's awesome. What's our real schedule look like between now and the 29th of April, which is the date the warrant needs to be closed?

[Speaker 4] (1:34:13 - 1:34:23)
Yeah, understood. I was planning on having a meeting next Wednesday in order to finalize anything that we cannot address this evening.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:24 - 1:34:32)
In which case, then, are we assured that the Finance Committee, because I think we're holding back on a lot of stuff for them to kind of opine that they'll have to be meeting before that, right?

[Speaker 3] (1:34:33 - 1:34:44)
Well, I think that it's likely we're not going to be able to, if history is an indication of the future, we're not going to be able to recommend a printed warrant. It's going to be a supplemental for a lot of these things, because I don't believe that.

[Speaker 16] (1:34:44 - 1:34:44)
I'm ever hopeful.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:45 - 1:34:48)
I know you are. I appreciate that. What's the schedule for FinCom?

[Speaker 2] (1:34:48 - 1:35:06)
I don't know when the FinCom is meeting next. I know CIC is meeting on Monday. I anticipate that FinCom will be meeting next week, but I can get back to the Board on that.

I was in touch with the Chair of the Finance Committee earlier this week.

[Speaker 4] (1:35:09 - 1:35:18)
FinCom, it looks like FinCom has a meeting tomorrow evening at 7 o'clock. Agenda?

[Speaker 3] (1:35:18 - 1:35:44)
Public comment, review, and potential votes? Did we kind of conclude, though, I think we've I'm saying this as a question, even though there's no Did we conclude that, as to what were in and out, if you will, of articles anyway, so now it was more of the details of the articles that were remaining, so for example, a dollar amount on a revolving account or something maybe is outstanding, but as to the articles themselves, we have

[Speaker 2] (1:35:45 - 1:37:02)
Yes, I think we had a pretty good consensus. There was some information about the school stabilization accounts. I did reach out to the superintendent and the school finance director, and we are still working through some discussions about how we can fund those.

I did get a commitment from the school finance director that they will not spend any of the funds in these stable accounts for anything but for the purposes either for the utilities or for special education. We'll develop an MOU that hopefully would help the board be comfortable. I think we still feel as though those stabilization accounts would help support the district, especially during a year where we're building a new school and we have new energy systems.

That said, we can come up with a recommendation to utilize free cash if the board is really intent on not supporting those types of stabilization accounts.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:02 - 1:37:18)
In some ways, it's kind of counter to what I've said in the past. I recognize that, but can we just go through them in order again and check them off and say we're done with them? Can I just ask one question?

[Speaker 6] (1:37:18 - 1:37:24)
Where is the article that the retirement board sent in?

[Speaker 2] (1:37:28 - 1:37:33)
We have not voted on that. It's not in here.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:34 - 1:37:37)
I know we had a vote on it, but I can't even find it to vote on it.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:37 - 1:37:39)
I've never seen it.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:39 - 1:37:40)
How come it's not here?

[Speaker 3] (1:37:42 - 1:37:45)
Oversight. Who's asking it to be included?

[Speaker 6] (1:37:47 - 1:37:50)
Retirement board. I sent it in and asked to have it included.

[Speaker 3] (1:37:50 - 1:37:54)
Can you send out the language? We had this presentation.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:55 - 1:38:10)
That was what I thought. I know we got the language, but there was no supporting information at all about it. I thought that's what we were waiting for.

Are they sure they definitely want to do it?

[Speaker 3] (1:38:10 - 1:38:17)
There was a conversation last week about this. You said they were going to submit something or you've asked them to submit something.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:18 - 1:38:24)
I asked for a lot of information. Typical, the same information that we ask every time. What are peer communities doing?

[Speaker 3] (1:38:26 - 1:38:30)
Can you just have that? Mary Ellen, are you asking for his next presentation?

[Speaker 2] (1:38:31 - 1:38:33)
Or if they want to come...

[Speaker 6] (1:38:33 - 1:38:36)
You reached out to them? Are you saying you reached out to them?

[Speaker 2] (1:38:36 - 1:38:48)
I've reached out to our finance director and the director of the retirement board and I've shared information with them that typically we ask...

[Speaker 3] (1:38:48 - 1:38:52)
Since Mary Ellen gave you this Warren article. That's what I think she's asking about.

[Speaker 2] (1:38:53 - 1:38:58)
Have you asked her recently as a result of that? Regardless, we've got to get it. It was probably three weeks ago I asked for that information.

[Speaker 3] (1:38:59 - 1:39:04)
Let's get it. If you need to have a presentation, I've never seen it included without a presentation.

[Speaker 5] (1:39:10 - 1:39:13)
Was the language vetted by council? I thought that was the other issue.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:14 - 1:39:16)
I don't know.

[Speaker 2] (1:39:18 - 1:39:21)
I believe I did send that to council. Can we have a reply?

[Speaker 16] (1:39:22 - 1:39:22)
Let's double check.

[Speaker 4] (1:39:30 - 1:39:40)
Article two. Approved bills of prior fiscal years. Sean, this number does differ by $27,000.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:41 - 1:39:43)
Is Amy with us tonight?

[Speaker 2] (1:39:43 - 1:39:45)
Amy is not with us.

[Speaker 13] (1:39:47 - 1:40:52)
Sorry everyone. It's Patrick. I have information on that I can share from Amy.

Great. The updated amounts are the line for T-SPAN and MassElectric. These are utilities.

We've talked about these before. The difference arises from the fact that we've continued our reconciliation with National Grid on a number of our accounts. We need to get a transfer from Free Cash for the gross amount that is owed on a number of accounts.

Then we will be refunded credits on a number of other accounts. Originally we put the net number in the warrant. We're just putting the gross number that needs to be paid out in the warrant so that it's accurate for accounting purposes.

We will be getting back $28,300 in refunds. The net is $54,200 to the general fund. That's the difference.

That's what's changed.

[Speaker 6] (1:40:53 - 1:40:57)
Is that for T-SPAN? Is T-SPAN separate from MassElectric?

[Speaker 13] (1:40:58 - 1:41:04)
Yes. It's all National Grid. Gas and electric accounts.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:09 - 1:41:20)
This needs to really be clear because if you're saying T-SPAN, you have 18-5 here and then you have MassElectric 64 and then Hudson Energy. Who's Hudson Energy?

[Speaker 13] (1:41:23 - 1:41:31)
That's an electrical contract for a school building so they purchase power through a separate provider.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:33 - 1:41:37)
We have to have actual numbers the night of town meeting.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:38 - 1:41:48)
I think he's saying we do have actual numbers. It's just that when we pay these numbers, we are actually going to get $28,000 in change back because it unleashes it. We have to pay the bill of $214,210.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:48 - 1:41:49)
Exactly.

[Speaker 3] (1:41:49 - 1:41:53)
There's going to be a net of $28,000 back to us. That would fall to free cash, I assume.

[Speaker 6] (1:41:53 - 1:41:55)
I just want to make sure the language is right.

[Speaker 1] (1:41:56 - 1:42:02)
Yep. We feel like this one's done. The Finance Committee has to go behind.

Yes.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:02 - 1:42:05)
It's to say the Select Orbit Report at town meeting.

[Speaker 16] (1:42:05 - 1:42:12)
Okay. Article 3. Same with Article 3.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:13 - 1:42:14)
Or the town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:15 - 1:42:37)
Town meeting. For my education, the Finance Committee is going to scrutinize the operating budget. They've been going through that process.

We'll get the results of that from them likely next week or this will happen after it's printed and we'll really digest and make any tweaks or whatever sometime in May after it's printed. Most likely the latter.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:41 - 1:42:47)
Is there a reason why we wouldn't make a recommendation on Article 2 this evening? Because we don't have it.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:47 - 1:42:51)
But we do it for Article 2. We wait for FinCo.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:51 - 1:42:52)
We'll wait for FinCo.

[Speaker 4] (1:42:56 - 1:43:07)
We struck Article 4. We'll just have to renumber a little bit. Article 5 is the establishment of a utility stabilization fund.

Sean?

[Speaker 2] (1:43:08 - 1:44:04)
Again, that's something that I'm working with the school district on. They have been clear that they would prefer to advance these stabilization funds, develop an MOU that perhaps the board and the school committee can sign. We've done those previously that would have specific language about who would be authorized to expend funds out of these accounts if the board was inclined to be the spending authority that could be the board.

I would recommend it be the town administrator and superintendent because we don't want to politicize these decisions. But if there's a concern about just control, this allows us to keep these funds outside of the operating budget and just kind of ensure that we're being very careful about how we make these decisions.

[Speaker 3] (1:44:04 - 1:44:20)
So I would just suggest that if you're going to include this, outlive me here, that an MOU is seen by the board before town meeting so that it's understood how this fund will be administered. Because I think, from my perspective, I care less about who, if it's you and the superintendent.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:21 - 1:44:32)
So I don't know that that arises to the need of a stabilization fund to sort of put a solution on a problem that's only 18 months of an issue.

[Speaker 1] (1:44:32 - 1:44:34)
This is the conversation we had last week, isn't it?

[Speaker 5] (1:44:34 - 1:44:42)
It is. But I don't think we ever got clarity on whether it is actually intended to be more of a Band-Aid for a longer issue. And if that's the case, then let's just say that.

[Speaker 3] (1:44:42 - 1:45:03)
So this conversation started well before the elementary school. Just, I mean, in Sean's and Pam's, I sat in tri-chairs where the conversation with different chairs of the committee and stuff like that started this conversation years ago before the elementary school. I'm just going to go back to Sean.

I think that if you I'm personally not opposed to it staying for now, and we're not making a recommendation, but I just...

[Speaker 17] (1:45:03 - 1:45:04)
MOU.

[Speaker 3] (1:45:04 - 1:45:27)
If you would want if you would want my support for it, which, again, my support is going to be irrelevant, I would want to know what the rules are and give me examples of what, in the last six years, have you seen where you would have used it if you had it. I'm sure there's examples. You've solved it, right?

And so I don't want to diminish the need for it. Because you've solved it, tell us what those ideas were or something. I think that would be helpful.

[Speaker 4] (1:45:28 - 1:45:36)
Okay, so a draft MOU can be circulated to the board tomorrow. He has to do it with the superintendent.

[Speaker 2] (1:45:38 - 1:45:44)
I'd have to work out this with our finance teams on the town and school side, but certainly by Monday.

[Speaker 3] (1:45:44 - 1:45:59)
Got it. That works. Just so you know, the superintendent is out this week and the finance director for the school is back tomorrow, so that doesn't leave a lot of time for that.

I'm just trying to set realistic expectations. You guys have another month before town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:01 - 1:46:05)
In case that approach does meet your concerns?

[Speaker 5] (1:46:05 - 1:47:14)
I don't know. I don't have an answer yet. If we come to the table and say in the last six years, this is the MOU, and in the last six years, this is how this would have been triggered under the MOU, and this is how we're planning on utilizing it going forward, to me it feels like, okay, well then it becomes more necessary to have a fund, a stabilization fund that does that.

But if we're saying that this is for Hadley, because it's going to be an empty building, and then for a period of time needs to be, the utilities need to be paid outside of the budget before it sort of gets into the control of the hotel company and the investors, I get that piece. But is there, it doesn't make sense to me to create a whole stabilization fund for a very unique problem. So I just want to make sure that if they're saying the stabilization fund is actually not a unique problem, let's be just clearer about it, and let's say these are the triggers for it, and this is why we will use it going forward so that people aren't shocked when we're using it going forward that it's used in that way.

[Speaker 3] (1:47:15 - 1:48:02)
Can I make a recommendation then, if this isn't going to be resolved by next week when we close the warrant, if perhaps the town administrator can talk to town council and make sure the language and work with the moderator to make sure the language that's here is broad enough that if there was a floor motion that said instead of creating the revolving account, it instead appropriated a fixed sum, a one-time fixed sum, which is also something we talked about last week, we just want to make sure the floor motion would be appropriate given what the underlying warrant article was.

So this language may need to be tweaked to give town council and the moderator comfort that if a floor motion was to change to then just, because we'd still be, sounds like, open to appropriating what they need for this year to make sure that we could do that on the floor and not run afoul of parliamentary problems on the floor. So if you can check on that.

[Speaker 17] (1:48:03 - 1:48:03)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:07 - 1:48:13)
We're flying. Alright. Article 6, rescind opioid settlement, special purpose fund, and approve transfer to free cash.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:15 - 1:48:18)
I'm just relying on this just being a technicality basically, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:48:19 - 1:48:19)
And article 7.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:20 - 1:48:30)
Yep. This is housekeeping, it just allows us to be consistent with state and federal law regarding these opiate funds.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:31 - 1:48:34)
So 6 is, 7 is just transferring the exact same? That's right.

[Speaker 4] (1:48:35 - 1:48:38)
In the numbers we consider these articles together?

[Speaker 2] (1:48:40 - 1:48:53)
We can, likely, when we make a motion at town meeting, the moderator can consolidate these, but I think, you know, leaving them individually in here will add clarity and we can explain this at town meeting.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:53 - 1:49:02)
I hate to do this, but the numbers aren't the same. You got 102,001 and then 123 in the other. That may be his right.

[Speaker 15] (1:49:03 - 1:49:29)
Hi, it's Amy. The numbers are different. So the 123 that you see in the first article was the money that we received in FY23 that fell to free cash.

And then the money in the second article that you see is the money that has come in in FY24 to the special purpose funds that was established. So both of those monies now need to go into the special revenue fund.

[Speaker 6] (1:49:31 - 1:49:36)
Okay. And is the total 123? The total would be that.

[Speaker 5] (1:49:37 - 1:49:41)
It's 123 for free cash and then 102. I don't have it in front of me.

[Speaker 15] (1:49:44 - 1:49:46)
Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:49:48 - 1:49:59)
Thank you, Amy. All right. We'll move on to Article 8, Approved Transfer of Water Enterprise Fund Retained Earnings.

Patrick?

[Speaker 3] (1:50:03 - 1:50:06)
Do you want explanations on anything again? Because we've gone through the explanation.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:07 - 1:50:14)
Well, I think Patrick may have final numbers this evening. Is that accurate?

[Speaker 13] (1:50:15 - 1:50:17)
These are the current numbers that we have, David.

[Speaker 6] (1:50:19 - 1:50:22)
And are we waiting for the Finance Committee on these?

[Speaker 13] (1:50:24 - 1:50:27)
Yes. 10.

[Speaker 4] (1:50:36 - 1:50:39)
Approved Transfer of Free Cash Special Education Reserve Fund.

[Speaker 2] (1:50:40 - 1:50:48)
So that's going to be similar to the conversation we just had on utilities. I'll get an MOU. I'll work with Town Council.

We already have an MOU on this, don't we?

[Speaker 6] (1:50:49 - 1:50:50)
Yes, we do.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:52 - 1:50:54)
The same thing. Just extending it, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:50:55 - 1:50:58)
We are. We're adding some additional funds into the account.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:59 - 1:51:09)
Same rules. Same process. Just refueling.

It is. Don't say yes if it's not yes. It is.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:10 - 1:51:23)
There's nothing glamorous about this. We're adding funds to ensure that we can meet our statutory obligations. There's really no mystery to this.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:25 - 1:51:28)
Okay, and this select board will report at town meeting?

[Speaker 17] (1:51:29 - 1:51:29)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:30 - 1:51:36)
All right. Article 11. Amend General By-law Revolving Funds.

Andrew Chappell.

[Speaker 2] (1:51:38 - 1:51:45)
This is an opportunity to allocate a few dollars for... We're not allocating.

[Speaker 5] (1:51:45 - 1:51:50)
No, we're just allowing them to raise their...

[Speaker 3] (1:51:51 - 1:51:57)
We went over these. Peter raised a good question. This one's not the one I have a question about.

It's the next one I have a question about. Right.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:58 - 1:52:15)
So the next one, I would like to say there's an extra zero in here. Make it 25, just like Andrew Chappell. Okay.

I don't have a question. Your comments were taken into consideration. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:15 - 1:52:20)
So what happens in the event that the Historic Commission raises $150,000?

[Speaker 1] (1:52:21 - 1:52:44)
They actually have other avenues. There was a timing issue. They have other avenues for the funds that they're going to be collecting so they wouldn't have to worry about taxes.

These would be numbers that would come straight from that. And the numbers go up as you have more people in your household. The numbers go up and up in terms of the level that you're exempt.

[Speaker 4] (1:52:47 - 1:52:54)
Thanks, Doug. Article 14. Incorporation for Chapter 90 roadway improvements.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:55 - 1:53:09)
Generally housekeeping. This is the amount of money that we are allocated through MassDOT and the state legislature. We usually get some detailed information on that.

[Speaker 3] (1:53:10 - 1:54:04)
Can I go back to Article 13 for a second? And just talk for a second about whether or not we want to make a recommendation. I know that typically in financial things we do, but that's usually because there's both a source and a use.

It's about how we're spending the money, not just where we're collecting it. Here, it's about a policy of whether or not we think we should be adopting a new revenue source. I just think this sits outside of, as a policy, does the Board to the Finance Committee say, we think this is an important policy.

I think this is more than just a financial consideration. I don't know that I have my own answer here, but I just make a recommendation. I would just say right now, hypothetically, I would make a motion for favorable election.

Recommend favorable election. The Board votes on it. Yay.

Great. The Board's now taking action. You can go to FinCom and say, not only these are the details, but as a policy matter, the Board's already made its recommendation.

[Speaker 5] (1:54:04 - 1:54:21)
I think the only reservation I have on that is the percentage. If they came back and said the 1.5% was either maybe could be pushed higher or is too high. But the CPA as a policy, I have no problem having an opinion on tonight.

[Speaker 3] (1:54:25 - 1:54:54)
Maybe then what we do is, since Doug's going to be the one representing us, if a majority of us feel as though we can support the concept of CPA, give you that tool to at least say the majority of the Board supports CPA as a concept. Just so you have something to be able to articulate. Because it is a major policy.

It's not just a financial widget. It's a policy change. I would be comfortable with that, and I agree with Katie's statement about that.

[Speaker 1] (1:54:56 - 1:54:57)
I am comfortable.

[Speaker 4] (1:54:57 - 1:55:01)
Do I have a motion? Is there a motion on the floor?

[Speaker 5] (1:55:05 - 1:55:07)
Can it just be a straw poll?

[Speaker 4] (1:55:07 - 1:55:10)
Sure, it can be a straw poll. I'd be in favor.

[Speaker 5] (1:55:11 - 1:55:32)
I think I am supportive of the CPA as a policy. It's going to be a tool in our toolbox going forward for some of these nice-to-have projects. To be able to plan for them in the future instead of wish we had a way to pay for them as they're coming up.

[Speaker 3] (1:55:34 - 1:55:35)
I agree. Great.

[Speaker 6] (1:55:36 - 1:55:42)
I just want to listen to your I haven't been able to attend your seminar.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:42 - 1:55:44)
There's more whiteboarding in that.

[Speaker 6] (1:55:45 - 1:55:47)
That will get me here early.

[Speaker 4] (1:55:51 - 1:55:57)
Sorry for interrupting. 14, you were on? 14, appropriation for Chapter 90 roadway improvements.

[Speaker 2] (1:55:57 - 1:56:10)
Housekeeping, generally we get the number in. We fill it in based on our roadway miles. The 300,000 is a plug for the exact We'll get that sometime between now and tell me.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:10 - 1:56:22)
I don't know who's taking notes. The comment just has a reference to project number 6 for the capital improvement. The CIC projects, but it might not be 6 anymore.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:22 - 1:56:24)
I think it's number 4 in this draft.

[Speaker 5] (1:56:24 - 1:56:26)
Just to keep an eye on that reference.

[Speaker 1] (1:56:28 - 1:56:38)
The 300,000 that's in here, let's say, is not purely just state funds. That is the combination of the state funds plus the 100 in capital? No, that's the state funds.

[Speaker 3] (1:56:39 - 1:56:43)
I'm not sure why the reference does, but it is what it is. I agree with you.

[Speaker 2] (1:56:45 - 1:56:54)
I think it was just there. Someone had made a recommendation that there's some additional paving money, and we should let people know about that. Someone be completely transparent.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:55 - 1:56:57)
Is there any reason?

[Speaker 2] (1:56:57 - 1:56:58)
I don't happen to delete it, though. No, it's fine.

[Speaker 4] (1:56:59 - 1:57:08)
Is there any reason that we can't take a vote to recommend favorable action R14 this evening?

[Speaker 6] (1:57:08 - 1:57:10)
Do we have to wait on the finance committee?

[Speaker 4] (1:57:10 - 1:57:21)
We don't have to wait. To accept and appropriate $300,000 of state funds? I'd make a motion to recommend favorable action.

All in favor?

[Speaker 17] (1:57:21 - 1:57:21)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (1:57:22 - 1:57:29)
Thank you. 5-0. Appropriation for recommended capital projects.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:30 - 1:58:37)
I have an updated recommendation handout if the board wanted to take a look at that. I'm recommending that we remove a number of projects, but also increase funding for one project. Just stepping through, after discussion with town staff, we have sufficient funding for the design of the town pier.

We're looking at getting to a 60% level, and I'm recommending that we remove the $266,000 that we're requesting. We have grant funds, and we just don't need those dollars this year. The $53,000 we're not going to need to match for anything?

We won't. We actually have some additional funds that we can use for that match. Additionally, there's a warrant article for trail design and construction in the warrant.

It really was redundant, so we won't need that $150,000.

[Speaker 5] (1:58:38 - 1:58:41)
We're still going to receive the full value of the grant?

[Speaker 2] (1:58:41 - 1:59:20)
We are. As we go through the warrant, there is Yeah, there's one for 225 actually for the trail, right? Article 25 has $225,000.

We have to gross appropriate those funds, but that will help address our statutory requirements for that grant. A number of resiliency projects. We have the Eisen's Beach Seawall and Stacy's Brook Outfall Titlegate.

Both are $320,000.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:21 - 1:59:27)
John, I know you're just reading out the ones you changed, but just for the record, I want to say MS-4 permit money is here, right?

[Speaker 5] (1:59:27 - 1:59:44)
If the MS-4 permit is in the capital budget, but as Doug so clearly displayed, we could get sewer enterprise fund money for other loans. Why are we spending through capital again?

[Speaker 3] (1:59:45 - 1:59:48)
The question is, why are we taking $50,000 Is it a time matter?

[Speaker 5] (1:59:49 - 1:59:56)
Because this is going to put the money up front and we're going to be able to spend it faster Why are we using ARPA funds?

[Speaker 3] (1:59:56 - 1:59:57)
For that $50,000?

[Speaker 2] (1:59:57 - 1:59:59)
There's an answer for that.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:59 - 2:00:03)
I'm sorry, I thought that was the question. Why would we not put it all together?

[Speaker 5] (2:00:03 - 2:00:22)
I guess they're interrelated, right? So there's $50,000 in ARPA, and there's $182,000 in the capital budget. But then there's all these other funding mechanisms which we already talked about, which are going to solve all the problems so why aren't we using them to solve those two problems?

So if we could just be specific about that.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:22 - 2:01:07)
As you know, there's lots of people that want us to move fast. I reached out to our technical team, and with the support of the board's utilization of ARPA funds, tomorrow we can actually get busy doing some of the IDE work for Fisherman's Beach. We won't have to wait until July 1st.

That two months of time can help us expedite some of the construction coordination, and help us be more efficient with how we're planning remediation. There may be opportunities for us to detect an illicit discharge over the next few weeks, and just advance some of that work.

[Speaker 6] (2:01:07 - 2:01:08)
So that $50,000?

[Speaker 2] (2:01:10 - 2:01:31)
In ARPA. And that's why we can reduce this number by $50,000, but we still have an entire town that we have to look at, and the rest of these dollars are going to be part of that just ongoing ministerial work that we just have to support every year under the Clean Water Act. So that went down to $131,000 now.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:31 - 2:01:33)
This is now down to $131,000?

[Speaker 1] (2:01:33 - 2:01:34)
Right, because the $50,000 came out.

[Speaker 2] (2:01:35 - 2:01:36)
$131,896.

[Speaker 5] (2:01:42 - 2:01:51)
And the reason we're spending $131,000 out of the capital budget instead of any other mechanism other than ARPA is because of timing.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:51 - 2:02:00)
No, but this is, the capital budget has all these mechanisms within it, Katie. So this is, we're borrowing, so this is going to, so it says borrowing here, it says GA, I don't think you mean GA, I think you mean sewer enterprise.

[Speaker 5] (2:02:01 - 2:02:01)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:02 - 2:02:16)
So when we say borrowing, it's a catch-all for all the different things. What the town administrator and staff need to do is update the parent medicals to G, S, and W depending on which, is it going to be general fund, sewer enterprise, or water enterprise?

[Speaker 5] (2:02:16 - 2:02:21)
Okay. So we are actually getting this money from the sewer enterprise.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:22 - 2:02:22)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (2:02:23 - 2:02:25)
Got it. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:02:26 - 2:02:28)
Your question's a good question because it's confusing how it's written here.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:29 - 2:02:40)
Yep. So project number four is chapter No, I don't think we're, you were just talking about the changes. Okay, that's great.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:40 - 2:02:43)
I dragged you into that one because of the conversation.

[Speaker 2] (2:02:43 - 2:04:49)
All right, great, thanks. So Stacey's book, Outfall Titlegate, there's just more work that we need to do, and frankly we want to study these. These projects are in the capital plan.

We'll take a little bit more time and try to help prioritize that. So we're going to jump all the way down to project 30. This is where you'll see the more aggressive work for Kings Beach and Fishman's.

That's 1.8 and 1.7 million. We indicated to the EPA and DEP that the town will seek more funding back in December. I had emailed EPA officials saying that we would look at strategies to fund more aggressive investments and remediation.

This $3.5 million does reflect that. We did look at some analysis on rates. We've, the town treasurer has looked at our rate schedule.

We've mentioned a number of times out of the 56 communities in MWRA, we're not an MWRA community, but all these communities are in greater Boston. We were the 46 lowest in sewer rates. There's room for us to race towards the middle.

We're not looking to be the highest. We certainly don't want to be the lowest. By bonding for $3.5 million, this would essentially mean that there'd be a $22.68 per quarterly bill or $90 roughly a year for the average sewer rate. And I realize that we don't want to see any of these increases, but this would be a reasonable approach to address some of these serious issues.

[Speaker 3] (2:04:49 - 2:04:55)
Have these been presented to CIC yet? These have not. Okay.

So you're going to present these to CIC?

[Speaker 2] (2:04:55 - 2:05:03)
They're meeting on Monday. I've asked the town treasurer to present these and I'll be available Monday morning to go over these recommendations.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:04 - 2:05:37)
So I put it up on the board and I already expressed my opinion about this. I don't see the need for this right now. I'm all for doing it when it's necessary, but the 1.8 additional for Kings that's in here, I don't know where that's going to go frankly. So if we're going to allocate it and maybe we'll spend it in a couple years from now when we need it, I get that. But I just don't want us to like go and bond this and actually be spending money that we're not going to be using right away.

[Speaker 2] (2:05:37 - 2:06:20)
We can use it and I've worked with the technical team and next week we're going to come in and we're going to have a presentation by Kleinfelder and we're going to talk a little bit about some of these additional aggressive efforts that would help the town do our best to manage our status of good repair. I've said this many times to repeat it, but I'm going to say it again. We could spend millions, we're still going to have a problem and that's why I will be more aggressive, but I'm going to be more aggressive at looking at supplemental strategies because if we want to use that beach in our lifetime we're going to need a supplemental strategy.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:20 - 2:06:30)
So all this money is dedicated towards cleaning pipes for cleaning beach. It's not about the broader asset management work. No, this is King's Beach.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:30 - 2:06:41)
No, no, King's Beach but IDDE. What he's trying to differentiate is the greater Stacy Brook analysis that's going on. None of this money is being used for that.

[Speaker 14] (2:06:41 - 2:06:42)
That's right.

[Speaker 4] (2:06:45 - 2:07:00)
Alright, so I don't think we have a... Diane, is it possible that we can pull up the warrant that we're talking about? I think members of the public are having just a difficult time following, so I should have...

Thanks. Apologies.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:03 - 2:07:17)
And just to make my position extremely clear, I'm all for doing as much as we possibly can in a reasonably, financially reasonable way. I'm just not quite clear how we actually spend this money next year. So that's all.

[Speaker 3] (2:07:17 - 2:08:03)
We'll get that answer next week. I'm going to reinforce Doug's point. The second it's in here, and we're going to set water and sewer rates.

You guys are going to set water and sewer rates next month. It's going to be based upon a budget which is going to carry a debt service for this $3.5 million. So if you don't spend it, we're just...

I know you're not issuing the bond, so we don't... We're not actually incurring the interest expense, but the resident is incurring the expense in this bill. Maybe it'll true up next year, but that makes resident's bills choppy.

And I know you know to keep it smooth, so I think the important thing that you heard tonight is let's be doubly sure, but then if we are spending it, we're spending it on sewer sleeving and IDDE and not on this $3.5 is not for other purposes.

[Speaker 2] (2:08:05 - 2:08:14)
Absolutely. I will double check and we'll have a comprehensive presentation on Kings Beach and Fisherman's Beach and some of the other asset management updates.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:15 - 2:08:17)
Yeah, if you can do that May 1st, that'd be awesome.

[Speaker 5] (2:08:17 - 2:09:24)
I think one thing I just really don't want to gloss over is the fact that between two articles which we're supporting in this warrant potentially, we're increasing the yearly payments from average taxpayers by almost $200, which doesn't seem like a lot, but in the current climate, it is. I just want to highlight that and say we don't take it lightly. CPA is something that I support for those nice-to-haves going forward that we won't have the funds to fund going forward because as the budgets get tighter, as our financial fiduciary responsibilities get tougher, we just are not going to have the wiggle room to pay for some of these things.

And this provides us a future for that, but I just I mean, I know we've asked and answered, but I mean I just want to be very cognizant of the fact that we are putting an additional burden on taxpayers to pay for this issue.

[Speaker 3] (2:09:26 - 2:10:30)
I appreciate you saying that. I do hope that this board will at some point, maybe in the future, define what nice-to-haves are. I think there are a lot of people that would I think there will be a lot of colorful conversation to figure out what a nice-to-have is.

I think that's very little. And I think if Nancy Schultz was here, she would say historic preservation, protecting our history is not a nice-to-have. If it was a nice-to-have, I'm not sure every member on this board would support it the way they have.

I think that the Affordable Housing Trust, if they were here, would say affordable housing is a nice-to-have. And I think the Open Space Committee, if they were here, saying open spaces, and I know that's not what you meant, but I'm just saying we should engage in a community-wide conversation, and that's because we're going to get trapped in vernacular, which everybody defines it their own way. So instead, and I think we've maybe been, and myself included, been inartful at times in using it, because then people throw it back at us, and using the nice-to-have things and say, great, so show me a town that doesn't have open space.

Show me a town that, you know, we have to do all of them. It's really a question of degrees, as opposed to must versus nice.

[Speaker 5] (2:10:31 - 2:10:54)
Yeah, I mean, but what isn't, I think we can all agree that $200 is nice-to-have for a taxpayer. So they could find a million ways to spend it, and that's their business, and I just, I think in these tough financial times, that's a big deal for some people, and we should be talking about creating some sort of conversation so that people can say what they're nice-to-haves are.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:55 - 2:11:40)
Yeah, and I just have to hasten to add, I mean, Peter beat me to the punch about the kind of nice-to-have, but also on CPA, everybody is going to have a voice on that. Everyone that wants to come out and vote in November, if we make it there, past town meeting, they'll have a voice on that, right? And there's a massive number of people that are exempt, as we talked about, which is very important to me.

That doesn't mean everybody that's, you know, making $125,000 and lives in a $750,000 house here, it's going to be easy for them to do that with an extra $100. Totally, totally get that. And that people have their voice to be able to speak on that, right?

People have spoken very clearly that getting these beaches cleaned up is very important. So, you know, whatever the number was, I actually missed what Sean said.

[Speaker 5] (2:11:41 - 2:11:42)
$90 a year.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:43 - 2:12:05)
You know, that's what it's going to take to make sure that we have that. You know, it's not a nice-to-have, right? People say it's a critical thing, so it's going to be important for people to recognize that that does cost money.

We could do it a different way and it wouldn't cost money, but then the other things that we said we would do in some other way, it would have cost money. So, one way or another, it's still all the same thing.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:09 - 2:12:19)
All right, so that brings us to a total bottom line for capital projects of $7,121,991.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:19 - 2:12:24)
Which I assume is within our constraints and capital plan and...

[Speaker 5] (2:12:29 - 2:12:55)
I have, I'm sorry, to go backwards one more second. The funding source. If the funding source changes on any of the, like, how tied are we to that?

Because I just, I have a couple more questions about this $3.5 million, the funding source piece of it. On what? For the sewer?

For the sewer. Because the S means that it's coming from sewer funds. Then what, I just...

[Speaker 3] (2:12:55 - 2:13:09)
We can't commit to funds that we don't have. There's other funds that we can apply to get that are not town-controlled funds. Or some of the ones that are being talked about in the whiteboard demonstration that we don't have.

But until we have those, sewer is the only...

[Speaker 5] (2:13:09 - 2:13:15)
So we allocate that money under sewer, but perhaps would pursue other avenues.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:16 - 2:13:22)
Well, like the state revolving fund, if that's what you're referring to, that would still flow through the sewer enterprise fund.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:22 - 2:13:24)
Right, but it's a different mechanism for borrowing.

[Speaker 6] (2:13:24 - 2:13:26)
It's a different mechanism for borrowing.

[Speaker 5] (2:13:27 - 2:13:30)
Right. But we have to make that decision now.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:30 - 2:13:33)
No. No, not at all.

[Speaker 6] (2:13:33 - 2:13:34)
It's done by an application.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:35 - 2:13:41)
We have some catch-up to play in there anyways to get... Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:42 - 2:14:06)
Any questions? So again, we're kind of, like, sending this to the finance committee with a kind of general agreement with this, but they have to come back and actually give the recommendation first before we literally give our recommendation. Is that kind of like the CPA?

Is that what we're doing here?

[Speaker 5] (2:14:06 - 2:14:09)
But when is CIC going to talk about it?

[Speaker 2] (2:14:09 - 2:14:11)
The meeting Monday at 9 o'clock.

[Speaker 5] (2:14:12 - 2:14:13)
But FinCom's going to meet before that, right?

[Speaker 3] (2:14:15 - 2:14:23)
Yeah, but again, this is like the operating budget. Chances are it gets supplemented before our town meeting. So it's not best practice, but it's historically what happened.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:23 - 2:14:28)
I think Katie's point was that I said finance committee next. It's actually got to be CIC next.

[Speaker 17] (2:14:28 - 2:14:32)
We'll move operations.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:33 - 2:14:34)
All right, we have zoning articles.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:36 - 2:14:45)
Article... I would move favorable recommendation for Article 17. It's a technical correction to the ADU statute.

Bylaw? What about 15? Sorry.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:49 - 2:14:55)
15 was the... That's the FY24 capital supplement.

[Speaker 9] (2:14:56 - 2:14:57)
That's the one we just went over, no?

[Speaker 1] (2:14:58 - 2:15:14)
You're waiting on... FY24 supplement. I think we're just waiting for...

We're waiting for... I think we were all fine with that, but again, I guess we have to wait for finance. Has CIC seen this one, Sean, this supplement for FY24?

[Speaker 2] (2:15:17 - 2:15:19)
I don't know. I will...

[Speaker 3] (2:15:20 - 2:15:34)
I'm guessing they have. This has been in there since day one. No, but this is supplement, Peter.

No, no, no, I understand, but it's been in the warrants since day one. So I'm guessing Patrick's the one that interfaces with them. Patrick, you still with us?

[Speaker 13] (2:15:34 - 2:15:38)
I can confirm they've discussed those projects in their process.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:39 - 2:15:40)
And they've blessed them?

[Speaker 13] (2:15:42 - 2:15:43)
Yeah, they were included in that one.

[Speaker 16] (2:15:43 - 2:15:47)
CIC did not. So now we're on FinCon.

[Speaker 5] (2:15:51 - 2:15:56)
I was second to his motion to support Article 17.

[Speaker 4] (2:15:57 - 2:15:59)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 6] (2:16:00 - 2:16:06)
I'm going to abstain because I don't know... I haven't looked up on this. I haven't gone to any of their meetings yet.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:07 - 2:16:12)
I did attend this, and I'm an aye on that as well. Thanks, Doug. Thanks, Mary Ellen.

[Speaker 4] (2:16:13 - 2:16:16)
Article 18, Amend Zoning Bylaw, Liquor Establishments.

[Speaker 1] (2:16:19 - 2:16:23)
I'm good with this. This was a...

[Speaker 3] (2:16:25 - 2:17:28)
I'm continually confused by the way they edited this. So the goal was to be able to say, because there's a provision which I drafted in 2009, so I recognize that it was back in my Jerry Falwell days, where we shouldn't be drinking alcohol within 200 feet of a school entrance. But there are other things that say nor a vehicle service station or gasoline filling station, right?

But they delete liquor licenses, but then they delete. It feels as though the edits actually don't match what they wanted to do. So I just would...

If we can maybe just not do anything on this tonight, just, Sean, I'm happy to jump on a call. It feels like the language is just technically not correct with what they wanted to do. They just wanted to strike...

They wanted to allow liquor licenses within 200 feet of a school. Well, not garages and service stations. That's actually not what they wanted, right?

There's a technical problem with this language that just needs to... I don't have a problem with what they're trying to do. I just don't think they're actually doing it here.

[Speaker 2] (2:17:29 - 2:17:33)
I will coordinate a call. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (2:17:33 - 2:17:39)
We'll take that up on the 24th. Article 19, Amend Zoning Bylaws, Nonconforming Structures.

[Speaker 3] (2:17:42 - 2:17:45)
I would make a motion for favorable action on Article 19.

[Speaker 1] (2:17:46 - 2:18:07)
I would as well, and I can take a stab at simplifying this if anyone wants, which basically says that this came up through a recent process we went through. Basically, we're out of compliance with the state law. Case law.

Yes. Maybe even just the statute. But either way, this just brings us into compliance.

[Speaker 4] (2:18:09 - 2:18:30)
We have a motion. Is that a second, Doug? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Article 20, Amend Zoning Bylaw, MBTA 3A Zoning.

I would make a motion for favorable action on this.

[Speaker 1] (2:18:32 - 2:19:32)
I will second it. But I think we should take a little bit of a pause just to make sure. This is not it seems like simple little language here.

We all know what this is, right? It's the end of a long process complying with this. We've seen the maps and the areas in which this would apply to.

That has real ramifications for people in different parts of town. I just want to make sure that we're not stumbling into this. It's primarily Vennon Square and a strip along Essex Street right outside here that this would apply as of right.

But it's not actually building even one unit of housing per state statute. But it does make it as of right to do multifamily housing. That's going to be my last soapbox of the night.

[Speaker 6] (2:19:32 - 2:19:33)
Why don't you approve this?

[Speaker 1] (2:19:34 - 2:19:41)
We approved the maps. That was an interim step. This is the actual language.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:44 - 2:19:45)
I'm fine holding off if you want to.

[Speaker 1] (2:19:45 - 2:19:51)
I just wanted to make sure that we were eyes wide open. There's been a lot of debate about this.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:51 - 2:19:58)
I think the planning board did a nice job in their discussion of it. If you haven't had a chance to hear that, it's worth it.

[Speaker 4] (2:19:59 - 2:20:03)
We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor?

Aye.

[Speaker 6] (2:20:04 - 2:20:04)
Standing.

[Speaker 4] (2:20:09 - 2:20:13)
Article 21. Amend general bylaw gas-powered leaf blowers.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:14 - 2:20:19)
This is the first time we're seeing this enforcing language. Can you tell us, Sean, what community this enforcing language is based on?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:20 - 2:20:21)
Marblehead.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:21 - 2:20:23)
Thank you. And they passed it last year?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:24 - 2:20:33)
Town Council has reviewed it. That's the language. I sent the Marblehead language to Town Council.

They reviewed it and sent it back.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:34 - 2:20:53)
I'm not sure it's quite exactly true. You have the enforcing language here, but it also there's language in here about prohibiting at all times. We are now, unless I'm misreading this, we are not just talking about enforcing what we passed last year, which was Yeah, I don't think so.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:53 - 2:21:05)
I guess that's my I'm with you. I don't So are you proposing that we're changing our bylaw to have it be prohibited all year round as opposed to summer? Because that's what this language says.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:06 - 2:21:13)
Okay. No. I'll make those technical changes.

It's not a technical change.

[Speaker 3] (2:21:14 - 2:21:20)
It's a pretty big change. All right. So you're still The ban, again, is still from basically Memorial Day to Labor Day.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:21 - 2:21:49)
That's correct. I would support that for sure. At some future period, would I support actually making it year round?

Absolutely clear. Absolutely. But I do think that people deserve at least a year of kind of inculcating this into their business.

The other question I had in reading this is, and I think we had a little discussion about this, who would be assessed the fine, whether it's the homeowner or the business owner? The homeowner.

[Speaker 6] (2:21:50 - 2:21:55)
Do you have a fine in your house? It's on the next page.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:57 - 2:21:59)
Is that specified here?

[Speaker 2] (2:22:00 - 2:22:01)
On the next page, it's $300.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:01 - 2:22:36)
The question is, how do you reference Can you just follow up and get confirmation? So if XY Landscaping Company is the one using the homeowner, that's fine. Thank you for helping me out.

Just let's double check that. And just again, if we can confirm that's exactly what's happening in our next-door neighbor is helpful, just because I think we share some of the same landscaping companies and so therefore, the same set of rules applying seems to be helpful. Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:38 - 2:22:41)
Okay, looks like we struck Article 20.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:41 - 2:22:51)
I'm sorry, I was going to make a motion for favorable election on Article 20 21. As amended? As amended.

Do I have a second?

[Speaker 1] (2:22:51 - 2:23:00)
I would like to wait to understand the homeowner versus So, homeowner versus what? Versus Landscaping Company.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:03 - 2:23:19)
Okay. We'll get that clarification circled back next week. 22 was stricken.

23 was also removed. 24 acceptance of easements for public parking and sidewalks at Elm Place. I would make a motion for favorable election.

[Speaker 6] (2:23:20 - 2:23:20)
Second.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:21 - 2:23:22)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 6] (2:23:23 - 2:23:30)
I want to abstain because I really wanted to see the language on this before I voted on it, so that's why I'm abstaining again.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:30 - 2:23:34)
Okay. You mean language in addition to what's in front of you or just the stuff that's in front of you?

[Speaker 6] (2:23:34 - 2:23:37)
The stuff from what the ZBA had approved.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:40 - 2:23:49)
I tend to see the supporting documentation that led to this. I do see, actually, in the comment There's an appendix to it also.

[Speaker 5] (2:23:49 - 2:23:50)
I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

[Speaker 6] (2:23:50 - 2:23:55)
No, I'm looking for the actual narrative from the ZBA.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:57 - 2:24:01)
In the comment? You want the comprehensive permit? Okay.

[Speaker 5] (2:24:03 - 2:24:09)
Maybe instead of voting on these where we keep having an abstention, we should just wait?

[Speaker 6] (2:24:10 - 2:24:28)
No, I think you're good with that. I just can't vote without having that. I totally get why you're not voting.

I'm probably going to 99.9% be a yes, but without really knowing it and reading it.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:29 - 2:24:32)
I think that's Katie's point. Wait until next week.

[Speaker 5] (2:24:33 - 2:24:45)
I think it's nice to have the will of all of us reflected, so if it's just a timing thing, we can just wait. We're going to be back here next week anyway.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:47 - 2:24:52)
In the comment, there's X number of public parking spaces that needs to be filled in. It does.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:52 - 2:24:52)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:24:56 - 2:25:02)
Go ahead. Article 25, Appropriation for Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:04 - 2:25:13)
This is the grant that the town has received and we have to gross appropriate funds and we will have the grant.

[Speaker 3] (2:25:13 - 2:25:24)
What's the net number to the town? The town's going to be $30,000 and the grant's the rest, or what's the net? Patrick or Amy can answer that if Sean doesn't.

[Speaker 13] (2:25:24 - 2:25:43)
I had a conversation with Margie, so the total estimated project cost is the $225,000 that you see in the article and the grant is a 50% reimbursement grant from the state, so $112,500 is grant funds and the remainder would be general fund borrowing.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:45 - 2:25:52)
Thanks, Patrick. Okay, I'm sorry then. That raises a question.

Because you zeroed this out, Sean.

[Speaker 3] (2:25:54 - 2:25:56)
No, but he's doing it right here, though.

[Speaker 2] (2:25:57 - 2:25:59)
Yeah, because it was going to be redundant. It was redundant.

[Speaker 3] (2:26:00 - 2:26:06)
We're going to have to talk about it twice. And that's because the grant requires separate appropriation language.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:07 - 2:26:10)
Okay, so do we have it clear in the comment that that's what's going on?

[Speaker 2] (2:26:10 - 2:26:16)
I'll add that language that the $112,000 would be offset.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:25 - 2:26:29)
And we'll have the select board report. Yep.

[Speaker 3] (2:26:30 - 2:26:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:37 - 2:26:49)
Article 26, we don't touch, citizen petition. And then article 27 will be a retirement board article which we'll see language next week and we'll make sure that that language is vetted by council.

[Speaker 2] (2:26:50 - 2:26:51)
That's right.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:51 - 2:27:20)
Okay. Anything additional on the warrant? No.

All right. Select board time.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:23 - 2:33:39)
I want to make sure I don't miss anything. I do have something. Go ahead.

So there's been a little bit of chatter about the Hawthorne process. So I kind of reserved my comments about that the night that we first went over it. And yeah, I've been thinking a lot about this, hearing from a lot of people as I'm sure all of us have.

And I just wanted to kind of share my thoughts about it. One, because I've said to some people I would. And because I think it's, you know, I think there's more of a path forward here as people have digested this than maybe it first appeared.

So I just want to acknowledge that there's been a lot of work done by town staff, by people in the community, by members of the select board. And, you know, it's amazing. It's almost two years since I bought that property.

There's been a lot of work done. Obviously, a lot of different opinions on what should be done. Everything from sell it to be absolutely like, you know, Red Rock Park.

And so there's a lot of work to do to kind of bring people together in that. I think we all have to acknowledge that Town Meeting did vote to acquire the property, thinking it would be largely, if not totally, open space. Town Meeting doesn't necessarily, even though we love for it to think about it as a legislative body and representing people, I'm not so sure that's kind of like a perfect relationship there in terms of like being the representative.

So it's important what Town Meeting did. It's also important what the rest of the community thinks. I think we do need to really think about, I think as someone mentioned here tonight, I've heard it mentioned several times, ultimately, you know, how do we get this to a place where something so iconic, such a major piece of town, really does have full, ultimate town buy-in.

You know, people have mentioned literally having a town-wide vote on this, ultimately. I think if we lay out, I don't know if that's the right answer, but if we really lay out the steps in that, I think that will reassure people that, you know, I think you all mentioned a lot the other night, this is a preliminary, this is a first step, this is kind of putting something on the table. And yet, it looked pretty substantial, so even though you were saying it was preliminary, I think a lot of people took it in as like, oh, you know, the fix is in, basically.

So, you know, we have to kind of bring people back together. Some of the people who spoke at public comment today had some ideas about how to do that. I hope we'll take that into consideration.

I do encourage people, if they haven't seen it, the report on the town website is much more detailed than what we were able to show. I assume that was what we'll go through next month with people. Much more deeper, much deeper analysis of what kind of went into that idea.

And yet, you know, still, there's a massive amount of frustration. In some ways, I do feel like we kind of, you know, stubbed our toe in actually getting to approval, potential approval of this because of the process. I do think we need to kind of recalibrate now to kind of step back.

I personally believe it's hard to believe that there's only one good option. I do think that maybe after we have the demonstration and discussion in next month on everything that went into the thinking, it might be more obvious why that is, rose to the top. But I don't know that yet.

And I think a lot of people don't know that. It does seem as though there should be more than one good option. So, I just encourage us really to kind of take that to heart, all the feedback, really think about our process going forward, and it does feel to me as though, you know, as I was reflecting on this, that we didn't use the Hadley reuse process for this.

In the sense of it was a whole committee, right, with three branches for Hadley. It was a major piece of town property, and you know, I wasn't really part of that, but a lot of people were involved, it really kind of got ground through, and the different options got used. I know at the end of the day, not everyone is happy with that too, but I do feel like it kind of did get processed in a semi-public way, much more so.

I don't know if that's necessarily exactly the right next step here, but could be a way to kind of is there a group that wants to go off and come up with, you know, a different idea and really kind of bring that forward. I'm not excited about taking another year to get to that first step, because we're paying for that puppy right now, right? The bonding money, like, we're paying for it.

So I don't want to waste a lot of time, but I do feel like we do need to figure out a way to bring more people along. So I think that's, you know, I think there's a lot of things in that final concept that I like, and actually we're very responsive to all the input. You know, I know that the literal instance of a library kind of took people by surprise, but once you start, like, thinking about the elements of it, a lot of them, I think, were very much from the input, but maybe that final kind of assemblage of the pieces didn't quite hit the mark, or people weren't kind of brought along.

So I'm probably saying a lot of what we all realize at this point, but I just want to kind of, you know, reflect that back to people, because I don't think we've really taken the time to share back what a lot of people have shared, at least with me and I imagine with a lot of us.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:40 - 2:33:41)
Appreciate those points, Billy.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:41 - 2:33:41)
Thanks, Doug.

[Speaker 2] (2:33:43 - 2:33:44)
Anybody else?

[Speaker 6] (2:33:44 - 2:34:22)
So I want to thank Nathan Kent, Sammy Dowd, and Ethan Runstadler, once again, for handling the meeting tonight. We're working on setting a date for the rabies clinic in mid-May. We'll have that information for you, and I just want to remind people that April 20th we begin the voting process, and our voting date is on April 30th, so please get it on your calendar and start to figure out when you're going to get down there to vote.

And that's it.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:22 - 2:35:43)
Thanks. Just a quick announcement. I spent lunch today at the Swampscott Senior Center meeting and chatting with probably two dozen seniors, so it's always great to see Heidi and her team down there, and just have an announcement for them.

Swampscott, for all ages, is working with local businesses and organizations to become more understanding of the needs faced by our older family and friends and those who may be living with dementia. Three local restaurants have stepped up to be our pilot sites and become age and dementia friendly. We are thrilled to be working with the owners, staff, and management teams to ensure better understanding of the needs and challenges faced by people who may be more frail and are living with dementia.

Three kick-off events are planned at each of these three restaurants, so please join us for a celebration and light refreshments. Cafe Avellino, where we will kick off this Forget Me Not initiative, will be happening on April 23rd at 3 p.m. Mission on the Bay will host the second kick-off on May 7th at 3 p.m. And Periwinkles is also excited to pilot this initiative. Their efforts will happen on May 9th at 3 p.m. So I hope you can join us. Unless there's anything else, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 6] (2:35:43 - 2:35:43)
So moved.

[Speaker 4] (2:35:45 - 2:35:47)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (2:35:47 - 2:35:47)
Aye.

[Speaker 4] (2:35:47 - 2:35:50)
Have a great night. Good night. Thank you.