[Speaker 1] (8:03 - 12:15)
If you are a visitor please sit in the rear. One final time, any member newly elected or newly reelected was not sworn in last night or otherwise by the clerk please come forward and see the clerk. Once again asking all visitors to sit in the rear of the hall.

All town meeting members to sit in the front three sections. Town meeting members please come in and find a seat in the front sections. Visitors please find a seat in the rear.

Any town meeting members newly elected or newly reelected please come see the clerk to be sworn in if you haven't done so already. It being 710, a quorum present, I do call this second session of the 173rd annual town meeting of the town of Swanscott to order. All of those who feel so compelled please rise and join me in pledging our allegiance to this flag.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, please be seated. I have not received any requests for announcements so we will move immediately to business.

I have been notified by the clerk of a motion for reconsideration. Motion to reconsider is a standard motion in town meeting procedure. You can find it on page 52 of your printed warrant toward the bottom.

As long as the person moving notifies town clerk three hours before this session starts, it is an order and we have one such motion. It is debatable. It requires a simple majority to take up the item to be reconsidered.

If the motion to reconsider passes, we will then return to the item being reconsidered and debate on that will ensue. Therefore, Ms. Meslinski.

[Speaker 31] (12:27 - 12:47)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Sorry, too close. Tara Meslinski, town meeting member, Precinct 6.

I'm a member of the Finance Committee but I'm bringing this motion on my own personal behalf. I move to reconsider Article 3, line 58 as amended and I cede the floor to Mr. Hartman.

[Speaker 1] (12:48 - 12:52)
Is there a second? Mr. Hartman.

[Speaker 21] (12:58 - 16:40)
Good evening, Eric Hartman, town meeting member, Precinct 1, Chair of the Finance Committee. So last night we heard a lot of compelling stories and comments about bringing the school to a fully funded budget. We heard heartfelt comments about what's in the best interest of the school, our teachers, and our children.

I will not discount or dismiss any of these comments and many of them quite frankly made sense to me. But I do feel that the discussion on this proposed amendment was ended before many folks had an opportunity to present an opposing point of view. If the town continues to vote in support of the amendment after hearing additional points of view, so be it.

So as I discussed last night in my opening comments, the town has developed a thoughtful and open budgeting process that we've been using for years. It includes countless open meetings where the details of the budgets are discussed. The discussions on the school budget are typically the most robust and include the tri-chair meetings that Ms. O'Connor referenced last night. These tri-chair meetings are designed to have open communication between the school and the town so we can collectively work together to present a balanced budget within the fiscal guidelines of the town. This year in particular, I felt that those discussions have been very productive as we collectively, and by collectively I mean the superintendent, the town administrator, the school business manager, and the chair of the Select Board, School Committee, and Finance Committee ultimately came to an agreement to meet every dollar of what was asked for by the school committee and the superintendent. So we truly felt we had achieved a budget that would meet both the needs of the school and the town.

And to be clear, the school budget is not living within the 2% plus new growth guideline. The budget is effectively up 5.1% over last year. This is an example of the collaboration between the town and the school that led to this year's balanced budget.

One of the main reasons that we have such a drawn-out budget process is to be deliberate, thoughtful, and aware of what we are including in our budget, and therefore adding to the tax levy. The amendment that was proposed last night will add a permanent increase to the tax levy without any significant deliberation. This is in a year when we're also about to face significant collective bargaining agreement negotiations.

Ms. O'Connor commented last night that her original ask was going to be $1.2 million, then it dropped to $850,000, and finally settled on $482,000. To add such a significant amount to the school budget on the floor of town meeting truly discredits our entire budget process, sets a dangerous precedent, and puts the town in danger of returning to our prior fiscal ways. So we've talked a lot about the work the town has done to achieve a AAA bond rating.

As our town administrator will tell you, this was no small task, and if we can maintain this rating, our cost of borrowing for future capital projects will be significantly lower. But there's no guarantee that we'll maintain this rating, and last night's amendment does not help us maintain it. Now I respect the various opinions on this issue, but there is a reason why we typically don't have amendments to the town budget of this magnitude proposed on the floor of town meeting.

That's because it lacks the deliberate, transparent, and thoughtful process we've all been working towards. So I recommend that we continue to work collectively to balance the needs of the town, while not straying from the fiscal policies that have benefited the town so greatly, and vote to oppose the budget amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (16:45 - 17:02)
Thank you, Mr. Hartman. I do have a few people who have given me their names to speak, but I will try to recognize as many as possible. Mr. Grishman, state your point of order, ma'am. Please use a microphone, no one can hear you.

[Speaker 24] (17:05 - 17:26)
Amy O'Connor, Precinct 6, school committee member. Because this is about a specific line item, it is my understanding that the prevailing, that voters on the prevailing side are the people to make the motion for reconsideration, and none of the Finance Committee members voted for this.

[Speaker 1] (17:27 - 18:14)
Thank you. I do not recognize that point of order, and I'll explain to the body why. There is no, if you refer to town meeting time, which is the body of knowledge that governs our proceedings, there is clear reference that if there is a town bylaw requiring that, I can so enforce, if I can determine who did and did not vote in favor of a motion to be reconsidered.

I also cautioned Ms. O'Connor earlier in a conversation, so I guess I will repeat myself for your benefit publicly. The motion we are reconsidering is the motion on Article 3, which the Finance Committee voted in support of. So I don't know exactly how you can rise to a point of order.

Thank you, sir.

[Speaker 13] (18:15 - 23:08)
Mr. Grishman. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. David Grishman, Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Select Board, and proud parent of two Swampscott Public School students.

Collaboration. We're always better when we work together. So let's talk process.

Starting last September, the Chair of the School Committee, the Chair of the Finance Committee, and the Chair of the Select Board, the Town Administrator, the Finance Director, the Superintendent, and the School Business Manager started meeting to discuss the school budget. In the spirit of collaboration, the Tri-Chair asked what we could do to help, as the school did not believe it could work within the town's financial guidelines of 2% plus new growth. We listened, we heard the challenges the schools are facing, and ultimately we got to work.

We met over the course of months through the process, all in good faith, and asked the Superintendent and the School Business Manager what we could do to help the schools. We reached consensus that we would break from the town's financial guidelines and fund a 5.1% increase to Swampscott Public Schools. This process took months of effort from town staff, the school department, and the Chairs of the School Committee, FinCom, and the Select Board.

Collaboration and process has been harped upon by many in this town, and was evident in the public discussions held by both all the School Committee, FinCom, and the Select Board, all in meetings that were open to the public, leading up to annual town meeting tonight. Last night we heard from the Superintendent that the budget, while not perfect, is workable, and she thanked all who collaborated. What we saw last night at town meeting was the exact opposite of collaboration, and the exact opposite of a good budget process.

The amendment to increase funding for Swampscott Public Schools by another $482,000 was an idea that should have been discussed and vetted with the town and its finance team, and should have been discussed and vetted by the Superintendent and the school business manager. None of this process occurred, and that is bad government. None of the typical process was followed, and those who are fiduciaries of the town, including the town administrator, the finance director, the Select Board, and FinCom, needed to review and understand the financial ramifications of this change and how it impacts residents and the taxpayers of Swampscott.

Without such, this is merely a shot from the hip and is not how good government should work. So I stand this evening in support of the motion of reconsideration and request the additional $482,000 to the school budget be reconsidered. Leading up to town meeting, members of the school committee and Swampscott Public Schools had the opportunity to attend FinCom meetings or come to the Select Board to state their case for additional funding.

Between January and May, this would have allowed the fiduciaries of the town to weigh in and evaluate in an appropriate forum such requests. The Select Board met to discuss and weigh in and evaluate, sorry, the Select Board met to discuss the warrant at least four times, and never was there anyone from the school committee or Swampscott Public Schools that raised their hand or requested a conversation to discuss the school budget during any of our public meetings. Additionally, when asked what we could do to help, funding the Utility Reserve Fund and the Special Education Fund was the request.

That request was happily addressed and funded. Esteemed members of town meeting, working together as we have over the last several years, we've accomplished some great things. I have concerns that the message sent by this body last night to the school committee was that Swampscott Public Schools, the largest line item in our municipal budget, does not need to participate in the budget discussion and the budgetary process.

We need good government, we need a balanced approach, we need process, and we need to ensure that we're acting as fiduciaries of the town and its residents for the schools and for all town departments. Fiscal discipline and collaboration got us here. It got us the AAA bond rating and will hopefully continue to pay dividends over the course of the next several decades.

But decisions that impact taxation, made on the fly, that break from town's fiscal discipline will result in the return of the Swampscott of 10 years ago, where we could not get a new school passed, where our reserves lagged, where our bond rating suffered, and as a town we couldn't get out of our own way. I want to move forward. I want to collaborate and I want us to be fiscally responsible by working together.

Thank you for allowing me to speak as I think it's incredibly important for town meeting to hear the other side of the story because the other side matters. And with that I want to I want to have our town administrator kind of walk us through the financial implications. Thank you.

Sir, your point of order.

[Speaker 39] (23:11 - 23:23)
Terry Lorber, Precinct 5. Following on with the previous point of order, my understanding of an article for reconsideration is that it should be made by a member of the prevailing side.

[Speaker 1] (23:24 - 23:35)
Your understanding is incorrect, sir. I'm sorry. That I appeal the decision of the chair?

I move to appeal the decision of the chair. I will refer to town council. Would that satisfy you, sir?

[Speaker 39] (23:36 - 23:43)
No. My understanding of town meeting time is that a motion to appeal the ruling of the chair is decided by the body and a majority vote.

[Speaker 1] (23:43 - 23:54)
Let me inform the body of the case law in fact and then you can decide if you would still like to. Thank you. I turn to council from KP Law, town council, Thomas McInerney.

[Speaker 35] (24:05 - 25:27)
Bookmarks. Thank you, Mr. Moderator. In response to the question, you are correct.

It is what town meeting time says specifically with respect to who may move for reconsideration. It says that some manuals and bylaws provide that reconsideration may be moved only by one who voted on the side that prevailed on the first vote. Swanscot does not have such a bylaw.

It further states that this rule is difficult to apply in meetings where voice votes or by a show of hands of standing votes are taken and it essentially discourages any decision made based on just a guess when you don't have an actual record as to what somebody voted on on the original vote. As Swanscot does not have a bylaw that specifically provides that reconsideration may only be moved by one who moved, who voted on the side that prevailed on the first vote, the ruling made by the moderator in my opinion stands. Ultimately, any decisions with respect to order and the governance of the meeting lies solely within the discretion of the moderator.

He made his determination. His determination is consistent with town meeting time and it stands.

[Speaker 1] (25:28 - 25:33)
Thank you, counsel. Sir, Mr. Perry, what is your point of order?

[Speaker 36] (25:38 - 25:52)
Mr. Moderator, different question. If we do vote reconsideration as requested, does that mean we are only allowed to vote on the school budget or does that open up the entire budget of Article 3?

[Speaker 1] (25:52 - 26:15)
It opens up line 58 only. That was the motion both moved to reconsider and made on the floor. So it's just the school issue only?

Line 58 only. Thank you very much. You're welcome.

Turning back to Mr. Lorber, if you still feel that you would like to, I don't think you can appeal my ruling, you could move to suspend the rules and institute your own rule. That would be a two-thirds vote required.

[Speaker 39] (26:18 - 26:38)
I regret my lack of understanding of all of town meeting time. Yeah, I would like to make a motion, and I appreciate your help, in order to appeal the decision or reverse the decision so that we, the article, the motion to reconsider is considered invalid.

[Speaker 1] (26:38 - 26:46)
Okay, I'm also going to point out that I have ruled that we are reconsidering the vote on Article 3, not the vote on the amendment.

[Speaker 39] (26:51 - 26:56)
It's really hard to follow this, and I'm just standing for a point of order because I don't think I'm alone.

[Speaker 1] (27:04 - 27:22)
So I will welcome a motion from Mr. Lorber to suspend rules in this case and to require that... I move to suspend rules. That no one who can be shown to have voted against the budget should be allowed.

[Speaker 39] (27:22 - 27:38)
Okay, so also a point of order is, my understanding of the article to reconsider is that it is the prevailing side, but only if the article has failed.

[Speaker 1] (27:40 - 28:36)
I'm not sure what you're citing. It means nothing in this context. We are not, we are not reconsidering the amendment.

We are reconsidering the line item as voted. Yes, I understand. And so I watched everybody that you just referred to vote in favor of the line item in the omnibus budget bill, budget motion.

Are you saying all of FinCom voted to approve the amendment? No, you misunderstand me, sir. The budget.

I'm going to, I'm going to humor this for another 30 seconds. We are not reconsidering the amendment. We are reconsidering the budget line item as voted as part of the omnibus motion.

So as a point of order, only someone who voted against Article 3 could move to reconsider Article 3? No, only someone who voted in favor of Article 3 could move to reconsider.

[Speaker 39] (28:36 - 28:47)
So anyone who's voted in favor of Article 3 last night and has now received new information that they, that they would like to reconsider Article 3 may make that motion.

[Speaker 1] (28:47 - 28:50)
I'm not sure what new information, where that comes from.

[Speaker 39] (28:50 - 28:55)
But as you've stated, we've been here for quite some time now and new information has come out.

[Speaker 1] (28:55 - 29:54)
But that is not a requirement that I have. It's not a requirement I see in town meeting time. It's not a requirement I see in our bylaws or charter.

Consequently, I am fairly confident in my ruling in this case. I want to explain it for the body so that there is no doubt. We are reconsidering the vote that we took on Article 3, which includes line item 58, which had a different amount that was printed in the warrant, but that was the vote we took.

That is the vote that is being asked to reconsider. Even if we had a bylaw that required the person making the motion to reconsider to have voted in favor of that, that would still satisfy that requirement. So I appreciate how exercised some people are.

Please, if you have questions like this, come and talk to me in advance. I know someone did and still felt the need to try to insert a point of order. But I'm going to now say that this matter is closed and we're moving on.

Ms. Wright.

[Speaker 12] (30:07 - 35:05)
Hi. Suzanne Wright, Precinct 3, Chair of the School Building Committee and Chair of the School Committee. I rise to support my other Chairs, the Chair of the Finance Committee and the Chair of the Select Board, and confirm that our collaboration started in October of last year, and we met, and through our discussions with the CHI Chairs, the Town Administrator, the Superintendent, and the financial teams, I learned to better understand the reality of budgets and the way they work to create financial health, long-term health, more sustainable financial health. The financial health of the Town is the reason the school budget increase and the reserve accounts on this budget are funded at more than two and a half times all the other departments.

And we know all the other departments and committees in this room could use the money. The financial health is also the reason we can afford the $100 million school, of which I am eternally grateful, and we know we can afford this money today. We said, you know, we don't tax to the top of our levy capacity and we know we can afford it, but I'm concerned because what does that mean for tomorrow?

As a fiduciary, I want to be sure what happens today doesn't set us up for failure tomorrow. And I was really hoping yesterday to have a debate because although I am on the school committee and having the money would be lovely, I mean, I'm not sure how the Superintendent would spend it, we haven't had any discussions like that, but it would be lovely, but I don't, you know, there's a reason the FinCom and the Select Board and the Town financial team didn't endorse it, and there's a reason why the Superintendent did not request it. And last night I really wanted to hear the reasons from the financial team, and I really wanted a fair and equal debate to better understand the future implications. I mean, we know that this year is a teacher contract renewal year.

We've all been watching the news and reading about what's happening in other communities. We know this is tough. And knowing this, knowing this, how can we use these additional funds now to hire additional staff that we're just going to have to lay off next year, you know, to fund things?

Or maybe we don't. I don't understand that yet. I don't have a clear idea of what these funds mean down the road.

And also, what about the needed funds to renovate Clark and the middle school in the coming years? How is this money going to affect the town's ability to fund this? Does our barn rating go down?

What does that mean for funding? Does it push these critical projects down the road? I mean, I'm just, I'm concerned that I don't have all the information to have made the best decision in, as a representative, but I'm concerned.

I had two neighbors come over to my house today and said, like, what the hell happened at town meeting last night? Did you guys really vote to increase our taxes? And I was just like, yes.

You know, it just feels like, it feels like the process, you know, trust the process, trust the process, right? And we didn't. We're subverting it.

And to both these gentlemen's points, like, we're setting this precedent that could turn destructive. I mean, if every person is allowed to come here and request this extra money, how do we say no? You know, it's just, it's just, these are just questions.

And I just feel like doing this outside of all the meetings we have, all the public meetings we have, and doing it so rashly is not really thought out about how this works long term. And, you know, last night's vote was called before a single, a single person was called to speak in opposition. And, and that's part of people's fault for not raising their hand fast enough.

But also, you know, it was, it was not a fair and equal debate. You know, we heard, we heard very compelling arguments. I mean, I can't argue with a single thing that was said.

I mean, it's, it would be great to have more money. But approving this motion for reconsideration tonight will allow voices to be heard so that we all have a sort of a more complete picture from which to make a better, more educated guess. Whether you're for or against this, I mean, whatever's voted is voted.

I'm, I'm completely fine. I mean, this is, this is what this body is for, to, to legislate, right? So it, whatever happens is fine.

But we owe it to ourselves as elected representatives and the people we represent to discuss this. This is, this is big. This is like, as you heard both the gentlemen speaking before me, this is the biggest change that's happened in a budget that we just do need to discuss.

So thank you for your time.

[Speaker 1] (35:06 - 35:12)
Thank you, Ms. Wright. Mr. Urbano, then Ms. Flannery.

[Speaker 27] (35:17 - 37:47)
Christian Urbano, Precinct 2, lawyer that doesn't represent anybody in this fight. I have to say that. Um, where were you yesterday?

I mean, you guys, the FinCom, the select board, school committee, you guys let us listen to a lot of really good stuff, just like you just said. We all listened to this. It all sounded good.

We all heard the 1.2 million go down to 800,000, go to 428 or 486,000. We said, I, I initially was like, wait, where's this money coming from? Are we going to take a little bit from the fire department, a little bit from the police department?

No, we're raising taxes and it's not going to be the end of the world that we raise the taxes a little bit, but wow. Reconsideration now, y'all were asleep at the wheel yesterday. What were you doing?

Why, why is this impassioned? Let's reconsider. Raise your darn hand, get up here and tell us this yesterday.

I love procedure and I think, I think the, the, that, that Mr. Mc, excuse me, that Michael McClung is right on this procedural issue. I like the procedure. I know there's reconsideration and yes, maybe we are going to vote to reconsider and allow some open debate, but my feeling is y'all had the chance to do this yesterday and you dropped the ball.

We voted, we were happy with this when we left and now, oh, sour grapes, we're going to turn this thing around. Look, I, I don't want to lose a triple A bond rating, but man, I would have loved somebody from FinCon or somebody from the select board to get up here last night who have been in all these meetings all the time and none of us happened to be able to make them. So we rely on you for this yesterday to give us the, raise the hand, give the counter argument and don't say, oh, we didn't get a chance to say our side.

Mr. McClung did not shut down debate early yesterday. I think some of us might have called for that, you know, cut off debate and let's vote now and we went for it because we are all gung-ho because we know the schools need money. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you, Mr. Rubano.

[Speaker 1] (37:47 - 37:54)
Ms. Flannery, then Ms. Dreeben, and then you, sir.

[Speaker 14] (38:07 - 42:33)
Mary Ellen Fletcher, select board, finance committee, vice chair of the finance committee, and somebody who was not asleep at the wheel last night. I did have my hand up, and I do think it's important that we do consider reevaluating our vote from last night. There's nothing to be afraid of.

Information is not going to hurt any of us. The fact is, if we turn around and we don't listen to some of the information that you have here tonight from the finance committee, we could be making a very serious mistake. I spoke to eight people today that voted yes last night, and I asked them why did they vote yes, that I wasn't making an opinion on them, and every one of them said, I just didn't know what was going on, we didn't really hear what was going, and I was told it wasn't going to affect my taxes.

Apparently, this document was sent out by the schools, or I should say the union, stating it would not affect your taxes. There's a lot of misinformation out there. I also want to say how much I think that some of the school committee members did a great job.

They have used the system. This is the democratic system. They have every right to ask for more money outside of the circle, and I applaud you.

I don't agree with you at all, but I applaud you. This is democracy. But if we vote to give this money, $482,000, we are increasing our taxes, and we are setting a terrible precedent.

I implore you to not vote to give $482,000. I do agree with the school superintendent that this has to be revisited. I have a fiduciary responsibility as a select board member.

You have a fiduciary responsibility as a town meeting member, not just as a parent. You have a fiduciary responsibility. We heard the superintendent say this is her recommended budget.

She said it's doable. It's workable. She's saying she can make it work.

Who else should we be listening to? The superintendent and the business manager of the schools know what they're doing, and if there's anyone here that can give them a hand, relook at budgets, then go ahead and do that. I'm happy to do it myself.

The superintendent said only one teacher received an RIF notice. I was told 17 teachers two weeks ago. We heard 40 teachers were cut in the past.

She recommends revisiting the policy. I recommend it too. She also pointed out there are a number of additions into the budget.

New librarian, a math tutor, a math interventionist, kindergarten, buses, special education, and the person who's going to be working with Essex Tech. Ms. O'Connor also stated last night that they would take funding and they would do an audit of the schools. I have the audit that was done of the schools in 2021 right here.

This is an efficiency audit, and what it says is maximizing the impact of time and staff. This is something the schools paid for, they invested in, and it's the school department that is recommending that there is 24.6 positions between the middle school and the high school to repurpose. Now, I am not recommending to repurpose anybody right now, but what I'm saying is this information is out there, and we have to address the efficiencies of how we run our district, how we run our town.

I don't mean the district, how we run the town. So, I'm asking for the support to reconsider this article. I'm also asking you to not increase our taxes and to support re-evaluating our policies.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (42:34 - 42:41)
Thank you, Ms. Fletcher. Mr. Jantas.

[Speaker 16] (42:56 - 47:16)
Good evening. John Jantas, Precinct 4, town meeting member, also vice chair of the Swan Scott School Committee. I have a few thoughts on this.

I guess, just to be clear, I would urge everyone here to vote no on the motion to reconsider. That would be my starting point. I've heard some things here that, as a school committee member, I found not concerning.

You know, one of the things I just heard was that the school district and the school committee seem to be, they don't feel like they need to participate in the budget process. And, you know, there's really no need for that kind of talk. I mean, we've all been participating in this since probably last fall, been very deliberative, very thoughtful, and, you know, dare I say, very careful with how we spend our money.

So, comments like that I just, I think are very unfortunate. What I would say is, back when we did vote on this budget, I voted against it for many of the reasons you heard last night about larger classes and teacher loads increasing, staff loads increasing, services not being able to be provided at the level we expect. One of the things, just as an example, all right, and to me this kind of highlights what we've been talking about, is there's been no middle school health teacher for the last year, the last academic year.

And, as anyone that has children knows, you know, middle school, sixth, fifth, sixth grade, it's an important time, child development, it's important to have a health teacher. Also, and you may not realize this, Swampscot has received over $200,000 in opioid settlement money so far, and we're going to be getting more money going forward. And, just to be clear, none of that money could be used to hire a health teacher.

What you may not know is, we, as, for a small town, we got a lot of money. And, you may not know how that funding source is determined, or how that funding amount is determined. It's determined based on basically how many lives are lost to opioid abuse, okay?

So, we got a lot of money because it indicates there's a problem out there. Without a health teacher, there hasn't been a way for the health department to coordinate with the middle school to get educational programs up and running, where, at an age where it probably would make a huge difference. I highlight that, I don't want to go into any more detail on that, but I highlight that because that is just one example of where these cuts over the last few years, not just the ones that were being proposed here, this has been an ongoing thing, and we have fought hard as a school committee to ensure that these funds are there.

And, unfortunately, some cuts had to be made. This is the reality of budget cuts. However, I voted against this budget, as I said, because at some point, we have to say financial stability runs headlong into the reality of maintaining a quality education that we expect here in Swampscott, the standards that we've come to expect.

And I think saying no to this reconsideration and leaving those monies that were voted last night will at least be a step in the right direction to putting some of those positions and services back in place. And just lastly, this is just, I want to share this because this is something I've been saying since Mike, I have one child who is in high school right now, another one that graduated last year. What I have said all along to them, to their teachers, anybody that crossed paths with any of my kids, I said to them, listen, we don't get a do-over here if we get it wrong, okay?

We mess this up, my kids don't get a do-over. So, I urge you to vote no because we don't, let's not get this wrong because we're not going to get a do-over with our kids. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (47:17 - 47:22)
Thank you, Mr. Gentis. Ms. Dreeben and then the gentleman behind Mr. Jackson.

[Speaker 23] (47:26 - 50:33)
Naomi Dreeben, Precinct 3 and Finance Committee member. I have two points to make here. One is really just to clarify that there is an understanding that in our full town budget, 68% is already allocated to the school and I want to also recognize how grateful I am to the school for my children's education.

Like many speakers already this evening, I do not take our education here in town for granted and very much appreciate it and will accept whatever the result of the vote is, but I just want to make sure that we have full and complete information before we make such a momentous decision. So, 68% of the budget that we voted on is for the school, which means that 32% is for everything else in town. Roads and open spaces and police and fire, all of the health department, everything else.

So, I just want to really appreciate that. 68% is well within what most towns do. Most towns are between, you know, 60 and 70% of their budget goes to the school district and 30 to 40 goes to the town, but I just want to appreciate that.

The other point is when I served on the select board, we created policies for fiscal discipline in order to be able to do really sort of generational projects like a $100 million elementary school and by developing those policies and living within it, we have now seen that policy come to fruition. We're able to build the school and we've been able to maintain a reasonable tax rate so that in essence, compared to other towns in our area and in Essex County, our taxes have stayed kind of stable. We're not way up here anymore.

So, to do both of those things is pretty incredible. Voting for this additional almost half million dollars for the school budget without figuring out where it comes from causes us to raise taxes and really sort of steps back our fiscal discipline that has enabled us to do really wonderful things for the town over the longer run. So, I just want that understanding to be there when you decide which way to go and I do urge you to vote for reconsideration.

[Speaker 1] (50:34 - 50:43)
Thank you, Ms. Dreeben. Now, the gentleman behind Mr. Jackson. I'm sorry, sir.

I will remember your name now that you've stated it.

[Speaker 33] (50:45 - 52:14)
Michael Contreras, Precinct 1 town member, also part of the PTO at the middle school. I urge everyone to not vote for reconsideration and if we do, I will definitely ask 30 of y'all to stand up to do a roll call and make sure everyone's name is on a yes or a no for the line vote, but I agree with the no health teacher at the middle school. I definitely have gone to other school board budget meetings where everyone has told me that they've worked nice and well with the town, even though things have been getting cut constantly, and also the budget for the school, if we're going off of the slides that were shown last night, is around 34, 36 percent, not the 68 percent.

So, that's something to kind of consider there. That's what it showed up, but I would vote that we don't reconsider. We've already decided as the voting town members, yes, it is great that you guys have worked together to create a budget and make the recommendations to the town members, but it is ultimately up to us to decide where the money gets spent or if we want to get charged more in taxes.

So, I would say leave it as it is and let's move on so we can vote on all of the other things tonight.

[Speaker 1] (52:15 - 52:27)
Thank you, Mr. Contreras. Mr. Fitzgerald, I'm sorry, I do not recognize you. Mr. Fitzgerald, could you clarify for the body the question about 68 percent, 32 percent, whatever it is?

[Speaker 2] (52:29 - 56:04)
Sure. So, when we present the budget, we present it by department so that folks can actually see where we budget the major expenses, but one thing that you really have to look into is where we budget health care. All of the health care funding, one of the biggest line items in the town budget, is in the general government side or the 32 percent that we have in the town budget.

We also have all the property and liability insurance and the general public official liability. So, we carry on the general government side a lot of the school expenses. That's not unusual, just something that we all have to understand.

I also want to just take a minute and just celebrate the fact that on February 15th, we became a triple-A community. Never before. The work that we've put into helping this town achieve that is impossible to really understand.

It was years of financial summits, the scrutiny of every single collective bargaining contract, and yes, I have a child that receives special education services, and yes, I went over and toured the special education classrooms, and I am absolutely amazed at the educational gift that our educators provide our young citizens. We believe in education. We're building a $100 million elementary school that five years ago would have been inconceivable, but for the work that we've done on municipal finances, and everybody in this room cares deeply about this community, cares deeply about fixing the middle school, fixing other municipal priorities, but we have to do it with our fiscal prudence.

I just urge folks to think about some numbers. For instance, 10 years ago, we had about 158 more students in our school district. We had less FTEs in the school district as well, and so for me, I have to look at data, and yes, it's October 1st numbers from DOE, but we're fiduciaries.

We have to let folks know we know that we need more teachers today than we needed 10 years ago, but we're trying to build responsible budgets. This budget is up by five percent. We didn't try to cut it.

We tried to give it more funding than we've given it any year prior, and we're trying to do it in a way that would help balance all of the priorities that we have. I admire democracy. I love the passion that people have, but we need to really think carefully about this because this is the three-page bond perspective.

I brought it tonight because I want folks to just recognize that in the back of it, they have the outlook, and they do caution us. We celebrate the fact that we have strong fiscal management. Anybody that's been around this knows you don't just get strong management if you're not doing everything possible to help build your financial position, but it's precarious, and they recognize how much effort we put into the budget, and this is not a best practice.

A half million here, building a structural issue with our finances. Look, this will undermine everything that we've been doing. I just want to be clear.

This is a big change in how we manage, and it will be recognized on Wall Street.

[Speaker 1] (56:05 - 56:11)
Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. Ms. Phelan, the gentleman on the side, Mr. Patsios.

[Speaker 7] (56:15 - 58:33)
Hello. Katie Phelan, Precinct 3 Select Board Member. In a recent Select Board meeting, after ending discussion and vote on water and sewer infrastructure improvements, the use of ARPA funds, and the potential induction of the CPAI, I stopped the conversation to reflect on the fact that we had potentially invited Town Meeting to increase the average tax bill by $100 to fund water and sewer improvements and $90 for the institution of the CPA.

At this meeting, I had stated that while $190 does not feel like a lot to some of the Select Board members, it's a significant dollar amount to some of our 15,000 residents in this town. I felt like in that moment I had a fiduciary responsibility to point out that we had just done something that could be a pretty significant monetary jump for folks in this town, and that should not be lost on us. I wish to do the same thing to members of Town Meeting tonight.

I am not here to sway anybody's votes from last night. I'm not here to change anybody's mind. I'm here because I, like every other member of this body, have a responsibility not only to myself, but to 15,000 members of this community.

This is an important decision for all of us. As I've stated in the past, I'm a mom of two public school children and a wife to a fourth grade teacher in Lynn, and it's incredibly difficult to balance the love for our teachers and the budget, but there are other options here. This is not an us versus them.

This is not a no versus yes. In the last two years, I have heard the phrase, if I knew what I was voting for, I wouldn't have supported it on more than one occasion, on multiple occasions, more than I care to count. I heard about it about the Hawthorne.

I heard about it about the Hadley. I heard about it about zoning decisions. The only thing I would like to change about what happened last night is not the vote.

It's the options that were not presented before the vote. Town Meeting voted to fund an additional $482,000 into the school budget without a promise that any of the 16.6 positions would be saved, without a promise that that one pink slip would be revoked, without a question on the methods that could be leveraged to pay for this, without an addition of a middle school health teacher, without a question to the finance director, without a question to the finance committee.

Not one question was asked about the precedent being sent for next year and other departments for the next 10 years. Let's get all the information on the table so that we can take the phrase, if I knew what I was voting for, I wouldn't have voted to support it off the table. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (58:34 - 58:42)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan. The gentleman in the blue shirt and Mr. Patsios. And then in the back there.

[Speaker 28] (58:51 - 59:45)
Thank you, Mike Kelleher, Precinct 4 New Town Meeting member. I really am excited to hear the points I've heard tonight because last night was my first town meeting and I was kind of just taking it all in and I was kind of dumbstruck and shocked. I almost didn't want to come tonight because there was no debate and it just, things were just getting railroaded through.

And I was like, it was so choreographed and orchestrated. It really, it really made me think, what am I doing here? I'm wasting my time.

So I really, I want to thank Mr. Fitzgerald and I want to thank some other folks here that are pointing out things that this has other ramifications. And I would like that we maybe move to this reconsideration. I think it's a terrific idea and thanks.

Mr. Kelleher. Mr. Patsios.

[Speaker 1] (59:56 - 59:58)
It's good to get your steps in.

[Speaker 8] (1:00:05 - 1:04:23)
Well, I'm Charlie Patsios, Precinct 5. I'm glad that everybody laughed because it's very serious. I voted yes last night and I'm the person that also put in for reconsideration.

So let me just say that. Why did I do that? When I came last night and I saw all the people holding signs, that was intended to me to sway my vote.

It was an emotional appeal to get me to vote in a certain way. And when I heard that there were people losing their jobs and that it was affecting our kids, it was an emotional appeal. And I didn't have intellect over emotion.

I let my emotions take me where the people that were asking for us to vote for almost half a million dollars. And I thought about it after I got home. And I thought about it all day actually.

And I was wondering, what didn't I hear? I didn't hear the other side. And I'm always a person that, I won't say I'm a conspiracy theorist, but I always wonder why I did what I didn't, what other people did to get us to vote the way that we all do.

And it's not all the same. I've also said in the past that I didn't like the way I conducted some of my business when I got to the microphone. I was very adversarial.

And I don't think that this is what we want to do anymore. At least, I don't want to do anymore. I speak for myself.

There's a lot of things that we've said we wanted to do. And sometimes, again, I'll speak for myself, I quite don't understand everything that happens. So when I hear bond rating, I don't know how many people have a bond rating.

I don't have a bond rating, but I have a credit report number. So if we can think of our bond rating like what's our credit score, higher your credit score, the less it costs to borrow money. And the more people are willing to let you borrow money because you have a good track record, that's your credit history, your credit report, your credit file.

So that's what a bond rating is. At least that's what I think it is. And I don't think I'm wrong about that.

We've got quite a bit of debt. And if we're looking to do anything else in town, our credit rating is very important. And the biggest part of the budget is the school budget.

And I depend strongly on all of that being discussed, debated, and settled before we get here so that when we hear recommendations, we know that people for me, smarter than me, have done the homework. And that there's been an agreement between the parties, the school department and the finance committee and everybody else that has an interaction with that. And I pray to God that they've done it honestly and openly.

So that when I come here and I listen to a recommendation of the finance committee, I take it seriously. I didn't do that last night. And for that I'm sorry, which is why I move for a reconsideration.

And a reconsideration is just that. It doesn't mean that we just have an opportunity to reconsider it. It's not an emotional thing anymore.

Chris did a good job about that. And I kind of thought about it for a second and said, no, I am going to stand up and I am going to say that I'm the person to ask for reconsideration. I'm one of the people to ask for reconsideration.

And I voted for it. So I hope that settles anything that was going on a little earlier. Because I did vote yes.

Please, let's just have a conversation between ourselves, a conversation that allows reconsideration so that we can reach a decision in a way that was thoughtful and thorough. And nothing more than that. Not adversarial.

Because if this house is divided, it will fall. And I just hope that we rise above that and we work together. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:24 - 1:06:48)
Thank you, Mr. Patios. Mr. Perry. Is there a second?

This requires a two-thirds vote. We'll move directly to the vote if this passes. All those in favor of calling the question, please raise your hand.

I'm sorry. Please put your hand down. I need all town meeting members sitting in the forward section, all visitors sitting in the back.

I've had numerous complaints. We are not going to do this this way. I'm sorry to have to make this the case.

But if we can't govern ourselves accordingly, I will do so. Thank you. All those in favor of calling the question.

All those opposed. The motion carries. We now come to a vote on the motion to reconsider, which, if successful, will bring Article 3, Line 58 back on the floor and we can continue this conversation.

Mr. Demento, Mr. Demento's moving for a roll call vote. I would need 30 of you to rise now and request that. This is just on reconsideration.

Oh, she's not calling the question. No, no, calling questions passed. We are now moving to a vote.

I'm sorry. I hesitate to think what will happen on tomorrow night when we reconvene. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23.

I do see 23 of you. I will proceed with a show of hands. I see 24, 25.

Okay, thank you. All those in favor of reconsideration, please raise your hands. All those opposed.

The motion carries. Article 3, Line 58 is now on the floor. May I have the motion?

Ms. Maslinsky.

[Speaker 31] (1:07:14 - 1:07:49)
Mr. Moderator, Tara Maslinsky, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 6. I move to amend Line Item 3, Line Item 58 and Article 3 to reduce it by $482,000 to a total of $32,399,096 and further to reduce the amount to be raised and appropriated from the taxation levy by $482,000 to $72,195,889.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:50 - 1:07:56)
Is there a second? Second. Would you like to speak to your motion, Ms. Maslinsky?

[Speaker 31] (1:08:01 - 1:08:09)
No, I leave the floor. Many great comments tonight. I thank everyone for them and if anyone else wants to say anything, I defer to everyone else.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:09 - 1:08:27)
Thank you, Ms. Maslinsky. Is there discussion? Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Barden, Mr. Dulette, Ms. Marshall. Mr. Dorsey, please. And then, yes, in the back.

[Speaker 18] (1:08:35 - 1:10:03)
Tim Dorsey, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 4. I rise in support of the motion just made for a couple reasons. One is it's a $1.4 million increase in the line item for the school budget. I think it's something we can be proud of and supportive of. It's in line with what the superintendent thought was doable and it's a significant increase in that budget line item compared to past efforts. I believe that's about a 4.5% increase in that line item. People can correct me if I got that wrong. But net an overall increase when you include the other articles of about 5.1% for the school. I think that's something we can be very proud of as a town and I'm very supportive of that.

For all the reasons that were just spoken about in the prior motion, I do not support the increase that was made last night. I think the discipline and the rigor that we've had as a town over the last many years, which is hard work, it is hard work. We need to maintain it for all the reasons we've heard.

So again, I support the motion and recommend that you all support it as well. Thank you. Mr. Barton.

[Speaker 32] (1:10:05 - 1:10:59)
Gary Barton, Precinct 3. I can't believe I'm sort of saying this, but agreeing with what Mr. Patio said about the emotion of yesterday and carrying on with what Ms. Fletcher said about this piece of paper, is there somebody who can answer why it does say in here that this proposal does not increase taxes or require cuts to any other department. I read this and sat here yesterday and voted for that amendment and now I'm learning that the information that was brought forward wasn't correct.

I think we want to have a debate about whether we should do this. That's what we're discussing now, whether we should repeal this or not. So help me understand why this was put forward with that text in there.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:00 - 1:11:14)
I apologize, Mr. Barton. I'm not in receipt of whatever paper you're describing. All I can say is that the only way to increase a budget line item without increasing appropriations would be to transfer from free cash.

[Speaker 32] (1:11:15 - 1:11:56)
So again, I saw today on social media, someone actually came in late and they posted that they understood that this was passed and they were like, must have come from free cash. And, you know, again, with the whole emotion of last night and the folks standing outside and knowing these people who, you know, a lot of whom taught my children, you know, I voted because I support our schools, but I support the fiscal responsibility of the town equally as much. And the way it was presented, I think that I will reconsider and vote against increasing the budget.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:57 - 1:12:00)
Thank you, Mr. Barton. Mr. Dulett.

[Speaker 6] (1:12:10 - 1:16:51)
I hope this mic works. It does. Joe Dulett, Precinct 3.

I am a teacher at the high school. I also am a department head in the town. I'm a graduate of the high school as well.

I play a lot of roles in town and I go to most of the meetings and I see a lot of the meetings and it's troubling to me that at each meeting a different perspective is presented depending on which body you're listening to. I fully respect every individual who works for the town, who volunteers their time for the town. Everyone is so smart in this town and everyone is so dedicated to the fiscal health of this town and the health of our children in the schools.

I have three children in the school system and working in the school system, I do see an increase in class size. And when I sit through the school committee meetings, graphs are presented which shows student numbers going up and teacher counts going down. I watch them, I project them, I stream them to everybody around the world and we hear different stories.

We hear that we've added teachers, we hear that we're taking teachers away. It's unbelievable what this town has done to be able to get us in the fiscal position that it's in and I think at some point we have to decide when do we have to stop being as fiscally responsible as we can be and we could be and shift some of that towards the mental health responsibility that we have as well and where is that balance. And I don't know at each level, you know, at a high level where that can be but I do see an impact in the schools as a teacher and I do see an impact in my students anxiety levels.

And so I was conflicted last night because I had heard different things at a school committee meeting and then I came here and I heard something very different and it was hard for me to really kind of decide where I was going to land on this. But and I also feel like I'd like to know what that $480,000 is going to be spent on because I feel like if it could be spent strategically and we could reduce anxiety levels in the school and we could increase teacher to student, decreased teacher to student ratios, that's a beautiful thing. I've got classes now where I've got 25 kids and 10 of them, you know, at least have IEPs and so I'm running around from student to student and I have seen that increase.

This is, you know, in 10 years in the school system. So there is an impact and at some point we have to really reflect on that and really put that up against our desire to maintain, I'm not saying we should become fiscally irresponsible obviously, but we don't want to be mental health irresponsible either and where is that balance? I don't know.

So I'll come out and say it. I'm in favor of increasing taxes to add money to the school system and I know we're increasing and I know that some of that money is going to the stabilization fund and I know some of that money is going to help the new school with busing and with the electrical needs because we're postponing the installation of the solar panels and it's important. We need all those things.

And then I think at some point we as a body have to decide are we ready to add money to the schools to do what we can very strategically and if this did pass I would hope that the administration used that to directly impact the students' minute-to-minute interaction with their fellow students and with their teachers. So I understand that raising taxes is not a popular thing. I also understand that risking our fiscal responsibility in the town is not a good thing.

One of the questions that I would have is, you know, if we did add this much tax what would be the real financial risk that we have as a town? Is it something that we could do for a year and then could we, you know, say okay, let's see what the impact is? I wouldn't want to do this as Ms. Wright had suggested and then pull all those teachers away because as students see teachers pulled from them they get very anxious and we did watch it happen and I appreciate Ms. Angelakis working out whatever she did to bring that history teacher back because there were some students really stressed out about that. So again, I'm in favor of increasing taxes if this money can be used very strategically and if there's a way to do this so that it's not a long-term impact, you know, whether that happens now or in the future, I am in favor of it. So thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:51 - 1:17:32)
Thank you, Mr. DeWitt. As a matter of as a matter of procedure, I just want to underscore for our newer members, I want to commend the school committee, the school budget staff, the finance committee, the select board, the town finance staff for putting together a thoughtful and detailed budget. They are not required to.

So I understand Mr. Gillette's point. It would be helpful to understand how that money would be spent. It is not a requirement under ed reform for town meeting to be able to see anything other than the top line.

Sorry, now there's someone in the back there. Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 26] (1:17:43 - 1:20:07)
Hi, I'm Mary Marshall, precinct 6 town meeting member and the parent of three kids. Two are already in Swampscot Public Schools. One will be starting kindergarten in 2026.

So we are in this school system for the long haul. As many of you know, I support teachers and Swampscot Public Schools in big and small ways. I'm a room parent.

I'm a field day volunteer. I serve on the school advisory committee as a parent representative and I'd really like to also support our schools as a town meeting member, but it was really difficult to know what the right thing for our schools was based on what was presented to us last night. I don't say this lightly, but I do feel it's important to share that I felt it was unfair and maybe even a bit disingenuous to present the proposal for increasing funding for the school budget to town meeting in the way that it was presented last night and it continues to be presented to us on social media.

I feel like we're being presented with a false choice. Either you support teachers and support the budget increase or you don't support teachers and our public schools. So I'm probably repeating a lot of what has already been said, but I wrote it down so I'm going to read it anyway.

So we heard a lot of conflicting information from our superintendent and from school committee members last night who introduced the amendment and spoke in support of it and a lot of numbers were shared and some historical information was about funds which could have been collected but weren't was shared and I really truly appreciated hearing the statement from our teachers union and from some really impressive young students and I don't disagree with anything that they said, but what I didn't hear was why the superintendent didn't ask for the additional $482,000. How adding those funds would impact the rest of the town's budget and other planning processes, what the ramifications of this would be for the school district today and next year and in the future, and to be honest I still can't really tell what's best for our schools based on the conversation we're hearing tonight. So it's hard for me to say this, but I support the proposal from Ms. Misalinski to return the school budget to the that was proposed last evening before the amendment. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (1:20:07 - 1:20:11)
Thank you Ms. Marshall. Was it Mr. Pastor?

[Speaker 5] (1:20:18 - 1:28:24)
Good evening. Glenn Pastor, Precinct 2, school committee member. No one's wrong here.

All right, so let's just all kind of take a deep breath. All right, no one's wrong. The five people who are on the select board, the folks who are on the finance committee, the school committee, the town administrator, have one goal.

That's to make this community as best as it can possibly be. That's what they do and that's what you guys elect us to do. I'll tell you, being an elected official is not easy and anyone up here will say it's not easy, you know, throwing yourself out in public like that.

So I just want to just briefly talk about the $482,000. Excuse me. A couple things, just if I can before that.

The moderator was 100% correct in his ruling earlier. It was really clear. I read the mass rules of order, it was crystal clear.

And by the way, the school budget is about 68%, give or take a little bit. I would say though, if the numbers were backwards, I don't think we'd all be happy about that, to be perfectly honest with you. Anytime something happens in our community, in our region, and in some cases internationally, people look to the schools for a way to talk to their kids.

Something terrible happens, people look to the schools to help their kids understand. Something great happens, people look to the schools to explain to their kids what happened. It can be in the middle of summer, it can be Christmas Day, it doesn't matter.

People will call and say, can we go to the school, can you help us, Mr. or Mrs. Teacher, explain something to our child? That's what the school department does. School department every day educates your child, your children.

Through the pandemic, I think we all realized how difficult that is. Our little cherubs aren't really great, and I have three. Okay.

I'm lucky. I have a 27-year-old who was in the Swansea Public Schools until sixth grade. He's a special education student.

He was in district. He was a student in the town from age two and a half to age 22. I know a lot about special education.

I'll also tell you that the town administrator has learned a lot about special education. We should congratulate him for doing that. It's not easy.

It is not easy having conversations. It is very technical. He's done a very nice job.

Part of this ask, though, makes up for what we have had to spend in special education costs. Again, I say, I'm a special education parent, so I know what I'm talking about. It is much more expensive to educate a special education student versus a general education student.

Fact. Fact. If someone was in the town, they have a child who needs services.

We are required by law to service that child. If we don't have the money, we being the school department, we'll go to the town and say, we've got to pay for it. I can't lay off teachers in the middle of the year.

So, the $482,000, it's up to the superintendent where this money spends. It's not up to the school committee, as the moderator said. It's not up to us.

We have very little say. We hire the superintendent and that's it. We don't even hire the business manager anymore.

When I first started doing this a long time ago, at least we could hire the business manager. When I first became involved in the schools in 1999 at a very volatile school committee meeting, that was only a few years past ed reform, where a school committee member could sit in on an interview. I could say, I don't like that teacher's red shirt.

I'm not going to hire her. We don't do that any longer. $482,000, a little less than 1.5%. If we lose our AAA rating on 1.5%, we're going to lose it anyways. Okay. Straight. It's just what it is.

I understand what the finance committee is saying. I understand what the select board is saying. I understand what the town administrator is saying.

They're not wrong. You have a fundamental choice. Actually, before I get there, for those of you who are in the audience who were confused last night, I guess I'm sorry you were confused.

Most of us weren't. We just weren't. But that's okay.

You can change your mind. It's fine. We're all friends here.

The school department needs the money. I don't need the money. The school department needs the money.

As Mr. DuLette said, mental health challenges at all levels, even elementary school, has risen dramatically. Some of the calls that some of us have received with some information makes what's left of my stand on end. It's scary.

$482,000. What we're asking to do is help us fund a little bit more for your school department. That's it.

Everyone here makes perfect sense. I agree, 100%. But if we had asked for an additional half a million dollars, there's no way we would have got it.

We were here last year, and I was lambasted by a previous select board member. How dare I bring up, I think it was less than $100,000 or whatever that dollar figure was, ask yourself, $482,000. It's going to fund some teachers.

It's going to make your schools better. If you disagree, that's perfectly fine. But it's not about bond rating.

We're not talking $10 million. We're talking less than 1.5%. If we didn't need it, we didn't think it was necessary, I can tell you, I wouldn't be standing and talking to you. I think it's necessary.

The last thing I'm going to say about special education, and I've heard this several times, look around, look at the neighbors that you're sitting next to. If one of those people or you have not had to deal with the Swampscot School District Student Services Department, you are darn lucky. A majority who do, I know for me, I wish I never met them because it's really hard and it costs a lot of money.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Pastor.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:26 - 1:28:43)
I do know and I would say as the parent of a child who did receive significant special education support, the town is legally required to do that, so there is no question but that we will fulfill our obligations. Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 7] (1:28:47 - 1:30:01)
You could call on Mr. Phelan, but he won't speak. I guess I'm still a bit confused about what we're spending $482,000 on and the point of my comment is we can't decide that here. That's why the process exists for multiple months long between the superintendent and the school committee and the finance committee.

They make those decisions and they come to us and they say, we're in such dire need for these things and we're going to allocate our budget to fill those needs. So I would love, if you told me $482,000 was going to support mental health from elementary school to high school, including the mental health of our teachers who I'm married to one, so I would support that. I would stand here and say yes, absolutely, conditioned upon that, let's do it, but we can't, we're not doing that.

That's not what the proposal is. The proposal is to write a check to have the superintendent allocate it as they see fit, which yes, we have to put some trust and faith into our superintendent, but we didn't get the budget with that money in it to begin with. So I haven't felt like the confusion has been alleviated.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:02 - 1:30:08)
Thank you. Ms. Marshall, then Ms. Fletcher.

[Speaker 25] (1:30:12 - 1:33:14)
Thank you. I'd like to try to answer some of those questions. Yeah, the budget didn't come with that $482,000, but the budget did come with the notice that 16 positions would not be filled.

So we did not ask for this money for any other reason than to fill those positions. And that is the intent and that is what we've spoken to the superintendent about. Can I line item which positions?

No. But there was no other intent in asking for this money than to save those forward-facing teaching positions, whether they're teachers, tutors, paraprofessionals, et cetera. Secondly, we've talked a lot about process, and I would love to have a process that I felt really worked for the schools.

And after doing this for 12 years, I can say that it doesn't. The process that exists is designed in such a way that it does not take the schools into consideration. And the conversations and the collaboration that happens is within a very narrow confine of what the already decided upon financial policy is, what the guidance is going to be.

We're given a number ahead of time, and we are forced to back into that number, which is why every year we come to you with a number that we are not happy with, that does not meet the needs of the students, and why we work with it. And when you do that over and over again, year after year, the cuts get bigger and bigger and the hole gets deeper. And after 12 years, this is where we're here.

Am I happy to be here doing this? No. I would love to have a process that did not have me standing here asking for this.

It does seem out of bounds, but that's where we're at. So I don't know if that answers some of your questions. Also, the question about taxes, we specifically asked for this to come from excess levy and not from free cash, because we did not want this to be yet another small one-time fix, where we got some kind of money to help a small problem, but then next year that problem exists again.

So this was meant to fill a hole and keep it filled, if that makes sense. So this would bring us to a new baseline. It is a reset, if you will.

I think we tried to make that point yesterday, and maybe it didn't get across. But yes, this is a reset for our budget. It increases us.

It would increase it in perpetuity, and that would put us in a much better position moving forward year over year. But yes, that would cost the town. That would be an increase for all of us.

And I hope you would support that, and I hope you would not vote to remove this money. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:14 - 1:33:32)
Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Is that Mr. Ehrlich in the back? Mr. Ehrlich?

Ms. Zoll? Oh, I'm sorry. Please, Mr. Ehrlich, and we'll figure out.

[Speaker 41] (1:33:32 - 1:34:34)
Norman Ehrlich, town meeting member of Precinct 6. First, I'd like to say that I have always supported the schools. I graduated from Swampscot High School.

My wife did. My two sons did. My wife is a retired teacher from Swampscot after 20 years.

So I do support the schools, and I find very credible the arguments that Mr. Pastor made and Ms. Marshall. One thing I have not heard and that I think I need in order to make an informed decision is I want to know what the detrimental ramifications would be to bond rating or to the rest of the departments in town of Swampscot if we keep the $482,000 in the budget. I'd like someone from the Finance Committee or maybe the town administrator to comment what harm would befall our town if we don't reduce the budget.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:35 - 1:34:48)
Thank you, Mr. Ehrlich. I know, Mr. Fitzgerald, you've expressed some of the perspective of the town finance staff. Could you summarily answer, Mr. Ehrlich?

[Speaker 2] (1:34:48 - 1:38:03)
Sure. Mr. Ehrlich, thank you. So I just found out, just like everybody else, that these funds were going to be for 16 positions.

So what I immediately did was reach over to our Director of Finance and Administration and said, do we have funding for the healthcare plans for these full-time employees that we're going to hire and be responsible for? And her answer was no. We actually have budgeted based on the FTEs that we built when we sat down for months and put a budget together.

So these are the type of really important responsibilities that we share as a community. And again, for me, it just is so important that we have careful conversations around how we build structural funding for some of these issues. Now, if we have to have more meetings, tri-chairs and conversations, let's have them.

Let's talk more about mental health. Let's talk more about the ways that we can work together as a community to address all of the complexities. Look, we're making huge investments in education.

We're building a $100 million elementary school. This town loves and supports our schools. Nobody should worry about that.

What we need to do is have more critical conversations and not feel as though this becomes so rushed. I've shared a couple of conversations about the finances. Certainly, we just got to AAA.

I'll just say it again. We got incredible warnings from the consultants that work for the bonding companies that we have to be very careful because we still have significant OPEB liabilities and other financial liabilities. The reason why we weren't AAA was because of those liabilities.

But we did prove to Wall Street that we budget better than anybody else. We built up our reserves better than anybody else. We have kept a steady hand on our annual budget process because of the work of the finance committee and the select board and the school committee.

That has been a celebrated level of effort. Certainly, this type of appropriation will erode that trust. It will erode the confidence and I do think this will be the seeds of additional efforts to circumvent the discipline that helps us to achieve really one fundamental thing.

It's not glamorous. It's simply called balance. Our police department needs more help.

Our fire department needs more help. Our recreation department needs more help. We have so many areas.

Our senior centers. We have so many seniors that need help. All of these needs have to be metered through a very disciplined financial process.

And again, I can't just look at this and say, oh, we've got all these positions covered in the town general fund budget because we don't. We'll have to make additional reductions. This will cause an incredible amount of disruption to our process.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:05 - 1:38:10)
May I, with your indulgence, ask Ms. Sarah to add a comment?

[Speaker 26] (1:38:10 - 1:38:33)
Specifically to your cost of what the reduction in our bond rating would be. For a 30-year bond, it would be going from a triple A back to a double A plus would cost about $24,000 in additional interest per million that we borrow, which is about 15 basis points. So it is considerable with the amount of debt that is on our projected capital plan.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:35 - 1:38:46)
Thank you, Ms. Sarah. Mr. Thompson, then Ms. Zold, then Ms. Driscoll, Ms. Lau, and in the back.

[Speaker 10] (1:38:49 - 1:43:15)
Doug Thompson, select board member, precinct 5. I wasn't planning to speak on this tonight, so I'm not going to be as eloquent as my select board colleagues. I don't know if anyone else feels this way.

Does anyone else have this ping pong game going on in your mind, back and forth? There are so many great points that so many people have made here tonight, and we could just keep going. I think we may be coming to the end.

I'm not calling the question, but I think we may be coming to the end of the arguments. I do rise in support of the motion, and I think we have clearly come to a point where our current fiscal guideline needs to be reevaluated. That's not to say that I know it's wrong, but we need a deep dive at this point.

I think so many people have put in so much time to keep us on a steady path financially, while meeting so many needs in town. I don't know if there's any other community that's stuck to a 2% policy for this long. Maybe we can keep doing it.

Maybe Mary Ellen's got the secret in the efficiency study over there. There's probably a zillion other factoids out there and perspectives. I doubt that in this type of forum, we're going to be able to resolve that productively.

I know I and other members of the select board feel committed to an extra deep level of analysis of where we need to go next. So that will not be business as usual, which I understand from the school committee feels as though they're being put in a box that they have to pull a Houdini to get out of each year. We have had a mantra, 2%, that discipline is critical and we can't be mindless.

So I do believe that inserting $482,000 in this way at this time, while fair under the rules, is not the best process. But we do need to seriously hear the voices of what is going on for our kids and our teachers and other departments and understand if there are better, deeper ways for us to find the efficiencies to stick with our policy, which we know is the brightest path, as long as we're not kind of cutting off our nose to spite our face. So again, I urge us to adopt the motion on the friendly amendment.

I think, I hope, I speak for the select board that we are prepared to engage with the finance committee, obviously the town administrator, the superintendent, the school committee, to ensure that this fiscal policy is the right one for us going forward. So we have a robust, thorough conversation about that and then make our plans accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Ms. Zoll.

[Speaker 9] (1:43:21 - 1:48:44)
Good evening, Keiko Zoll, Precinct 5 town meeting member. So I was not here for the first hour, so I apologize if I'm repeating anything that other people have brought up, child care issues tonight. So a lot of what I have heard today across social media, through text messages, emails, voicemails, is how is this $482,000 going to be spent?

And I believe it was Ms. Phelan who was speaking earlier about, you know, we just don't know what that's going to look like. We got to give trust in our superintendent to activate her cabinet to, you know, allocate how those funds will be spent. I would like to remind everybody here, and I have spoken about this at previous town meetings, that every public school district in America received an injection of cash from the U.S. Department of Education by way of CARES Act, ARPA, and what is ultimately known as ESSER funds. Couldn't tell you what it stands for. That injection of cash into American public education was as much as the United States invested via the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. We're talking approximately $300 billion.

School committees did not determine how that was going to be spent. Select boards did not determine how that money was going to be spent. It was left to your local education association, your LEA, as the Department of Ed calls them, which ultimately is your superintendent and their cabinet.

We trusted our superintendent to be fiscally responsible with those ESSER funds, and I believe they were. They were very transparent about the process through the entire three years. The clock on those funds runs out September 2024.

It is presenting fiscal cliffs for every single public school district in this country. I bring all this up to say I applaud Ms. O'Connor for taking the same concept. We just need to inject and infuse with cash to respond to an unprecedented situation experienced by every single child, public, private, parochial, whatever, in this country, globally.

We've heard, I've heard, a lot about process, a lot about let's have more meetings, let's have more conversations, let's bring up the analysis, let's bring up bond ratings. Important? Yes.

Valid? Yes. I'm hearing a lot about this new school building and our schools.

What I am not hearing in here is our students. I fully own that I'm a taxpayer in this town. My child does not go to school in this district.

He goes to charter. That was a personal choice that our family made. But we are very excited to return back to this district for high school, mostly so I don't have to drive all the way into Marblehead.

That said, I can't necessarily name my child as a student in the school system here. I can tell you about Tommy. I can tell you about Gus.

I can tell you about Sam, Izzy, and Lolo, and any other parent or caregiver who has a child in this school system here. Yes, there are valid and competing demands for the needs of our fire department, our police department, our senior center. But if you can't support the students, the children of the community in which you reside, who grow up to need those services, to become our firefighters, our police officers, our recreation department people.

I'm sorry, I don't know what your titles are. This is super cliche and hackneyed, but our children are in fact the future. We have to invest in them.

We've towed the line for years and years with our school budgets. Is it unorthodox? What was proposed last night, yes.

But you also can't deny the fact that you had a vote of nearly two to one in support of an unorthodox method at a time of unprecedented crisis within the American public education system. It is the least, I think $482,000 is the least we can do in support of our students. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:45 - 1:48:54)
Thank you, Ms. Zoll. I had Ms. Driscoll, Ms. Lau, Mr. Talcog, and then in the back.

[Speaker 43] (1:49:03 - 1:50:01)
Well, Anne Driscoll, Precinct 1 town meeting member. I'm really glad that we're having a much more fulsome discussion tonight because I think I learned a lot and I have a better idea what this money means. But I also, in addition to being a journalist, I'm also a licensed social worker in Massachusetts and have been for a long time.

And I keep hearing about, you know, mental health issues, anxiety levels. And I just have a question and that is, I know this is kind of a side thing, but I'm just wondering if it's possible for us to be able to use some of the opioid money, excuse me, to provide supports, preventative kinds of things.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:01 - 1:50:06)
It's a great point. I'm going to ask that we stay on topic with the school budget line.

[Speaker 43] (1:50:08 - 1:50:08)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:50:09 - 1:50:13)
Thank you. Ms. Lau, Mr. Talcog in the back, and then Ms. Dreeben.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:28 - 1:58:15)
Good evening. Mara Lau, Precinct 3. Thank you for hearing me.

I do stand in complete support of the $482,000 to support our schools, to support our teachers, and to lessen some of the holes that have already been created over the years of taking away and making the superintendent and the district do more with less. So I'll tick through a couple of examples. About eight years ago, we lost the health department of the elementary schools.

So the health teachers were taken out of the three elementary schools. The year before, we had just bought a health curriculum. So that was a loss and a loss.

And the idea was that our PE teachers would fill in the holes for the health department at the elementary school. Well, I think you can all imagine that that just didn't happen very efficiently. And so where are those kids now?

They're in high school. Following a pandemic. And they're struggling.

Do those links, you know, have direct lines? No. But as we know, learning is a building block.

And so they have created deficiencies. And the schools have had to, they lose things and they don't come back. You know, there were years, we didn't have libraries in our elementary schools.

We had some schools had fantastic teachers that were librarians that did magnificent things. But that is not the way it should be. And so we've had wonderful citizens who have filled in gaps when we, the town, have not fully funded our schools to support our teachers, to support our administrators.

And that's an erosion. Because so when something is taken away, it so seldom comes back. And I think that Mr. Gillette did a great job at speaking to that. I have been at very many select board meetings and spoken fervently about broken process and broken attitudes in so many ways. I listen to the school committee meetings very regularly. And the story that I hear at one versus the other, you know, it's very similar to as adults, we can probably all have siblings.

And everybody who has been raised by, you know, the same two parents and had the same upbringing, but then you look back on a story, everybody has a different way of looking at it. And that seems to be what I hear from the select board versus the school committee. It is very similar to that.

That sort of broken lens or everybody hears it differently, absorbs it differently. And henceforth, we as town meeting members are getting that information very differently. I think that over the years, Ms. Angelakis has proven herself to be honorable, very financially prudent, and has earned the respect of this community through her actions, caring for our children, supporting our teachers, but also working with the town to be fiscally minded. So, yes, although she came to this podium last night, I would have to say that wasn't the typical Pamela Angelakis that I was used to seeing at this meeting. She seemed measured. She seemed to be somewhat put in a position saying those things last night.

It's just an observation. So I was trying to stand to figure out what the real deal was. It's a concern that it feels as though the three major committees that run our town are not playing well together.

That needs to be fixed, and hopefully it will. We hope. So a couple of other quick things in terms of the erosion.

I just would also like to say I have sat on the school council for the high school for the best part of 10 years, and six principals. My oldest is 27, my youngest is 15, and the problems are getting more serious. And I'm definitely not a nervous Nelly, but I'm not somebody who is an alarmist.

I think that our kids are experiencing different challenges, and I think that these are unusual times. And our students and our school district deserve the money to be able to navigate the waters of these very unusual times. And I think that the town and the community should support this fully because it will be beneficial.

If all of the money doesn't get used, I don't think that everybody is going to go out and buy a $5,000 chair for their classroom. It's not going to get wasted. I don't believe Ms. Angelakis will be wasting our money as taxpayers. I would like to see full and complete support of our students because supporting our students supports our community members, supports our parents, because very often when you have fragile children, there's other fragilities in their world that need support. So it is treating a whole child, it is treating a whole family, and working as a community really does move that needle. And then lastly, I would just like to say, because I'm very proud that I just had a college graduate on Sunday, the speaker spoke about lots of different things and how young people can move the needle, but compassion was the one that stood out to me the most.

She talked about compassion and she talked about community and how they could be doers. One of my biggest mottos as a parent is, and a former educator, is we are givers, not takers. And I hope everybody tonight will feel that financially we are able to be givers and that it is the responsible thing to do for our students, for our families, and this doesn't have to be a favor thing.

We can afford this. Please. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:58:16 - 2:01:34)
Thank you, Ms. Lau. Mr. Talkov, the gentleman in back, Ms. Dreeben, and I recognize Mr. Talkov. Okay, Mr. Talkov is calling the question. Is there a second? All those in favor of calling the question, which will end debate? All those opposed?

The motion carries. We now move directly to a vote on Ms. Mislinski's motion. To fund Line 58 in Article 3 from last night in the amount of, pardon me, $32,399,096, which requires the raise and appropriate from the tax levy to be $72,195,889.

All those in favor, please raise your hands. Excuse me. Is there a point of order, Mr. Pilot?

We are currently voting on Ms. Mislinski's motion to restore the original Finance Committee motion for the school line item 58 as moved originally not to include the $482,000. This requires a majority vote. All of those in favor of restoring that original amount less the $482,000, please raise your hand.

All those opposed? The chair is in doubt. We'll move to a standing vote.

I need to do two things at this point. I need to ask all visitors to please leave the room. I ask all town staff to come down here by me.

I would like to see if Mr. Giard, Ms. Powell, Mr. Patsios, Mr. Piccarello, Ms. Grian, and Ms. Boggs would come and be tellers. Obviously, staff who are elected town meeting members, please stay up there. Are there 30 people who would like to call a roll call vote?

Please rise now. Okay, sorry. If you are standing now, you are asking for a roll call vote.

Mr. Klerk, will you please call the roll? You may be seated.

[Speaker 4] (2:01:55 - 2:14:29)
Precinct 1, James Andrews. Please be quiet so I can hear the answers. I'm sorry, Mr. Andrews, I didn't hear you. Nay? Yay. Catherine Arrington.

Yes. Richard Baldacci. Lee Bartlett Genest.

Bradley Bombardier. Jorge Briones. Ronald Burgess.

Krista Burke. Claire Callahan. Yes.

Joseph Callahan. Yes. Michael Contreras.

Sidney Cresta. Gino Cresta. Jan DiPaolo.

Ann Driscoll. Michael Dunn. Ralph Edwards.

Tara Gallagher. Tara Gallagher. Rebecca Green.

David Grishman. William Hancox. Eric Hartman.

Yes. Linda Hayes. Cynthia Hellman-Flatt.

Joan Hilario. Mary Alice Johnson. Maria Karametsopoulos.

Elizabeth Knudson. Nelson Knudson. Anna Lanzilli.

Lisa Ledbury. Colin Loggins. Sean McGovern.

Deborah Newman. Diane O'Brien. Reggie Valentina Pagan.

Duncan Page. Gerald Perry. John Piccarello.

David Edward Pitcher. Sally Powell. Mary Ann Pulaski.

Alicia Redden. Julia Serino. Michael Serino.

Michelle Serino. Lauren Shaw. Frank Smith.

Mary Ann Speranza-Hartman. Danielle Strauss. Matthew Strauss.

Polly Titcom. I'm sorry. Susan Tweed.

Michael Wood. Starting with precinct two, there's somebody that's not on the list that was appointed last night. Mr. Healy. Robert Bartolomeo. Cindy Blonder. Jeff Blonder.

Waldemar Bogdan Schwers. Rebecca Brandt. Steven Brum.

Susan Buonapane. I'm sorry if I'm getting these wrong. Correa Butters.

Correa Butters? Carla Butters. I'm sorry.

Jeffrey Butters. James Cassetta. Eden Clark.

Amy Critch. Virginia Cronin. Shauna Delano.

Brian DiMatteo. Mary Doherty. Barbara Epstein.

Haley Farrar-Murr. Jennifer Gallicar. Susan Gambale.

Ryan Hale. Suzanne Hale. Maximilian Hanlon.

Nancy Hanlon. Virginia Harley. Dana Hoffman.

Lorene Jackson. Christopher James. Isabel Key.

Matthew McDonald. Corinne Marshall. John Marshall.

Sidney Marshall. Greg McDonald. Donna McHugh.

Neil Montague. Carol Montero. Matthew Moran.

Terry Morgan. Jennifer Murphy. Glenn Pastor.

Debra Rubin. David Santino. Anne Shibeli.

Gerilyn Steffen. Dana Swanstrom. Natalie Swanstrom.

Amy Tatum Bannister. Christian Urbano. Francis Wiener.

Moving on to Precinct 3. Andrea Amore. I'm sorry.

Gary Barden. Mark Barden. Debra Boggs.

Caitlin Bova. Janelle Cameron. Constance Carmen.

Molly Connor. Gargi Cooper. Martha Curry.

Charlotte Daher. No? Yes.

Marsha Dalton. Susan Deal. Joe Dulette.

Naomi Dreeben. Neil Duffy. Sarah Ewing.

Richard Frankel. Colleen Hitchcock. Craig Hitchcock.

Jennifer Honig. Nancy Hughes. Lisa Julian-Hayes.

Jer Jerma. Martha Kelleher. Martha Kelleher.

Richard Kraft. Mara Lau. Loring Lincoln.

Christopher Mancini. Kim Martin Epstein. Roberto Mastroianni.

Edward Mulvey. Kenneth Norton. Catherine Phelan.

John Phelan. Sidney Pierce. Don Pinkerton.

Gail Rosenberg. Scott Saunders. Nancy Schultz.

Willis Schultz. Hannah Sharpless. Laura Spathanis.

Peter Spellios. Rebecca Spellios. Yes?

Rebecca Spellios. Yes. Wayne Spritz.

Rachel Taradosh. Cynthia Tennant. Rebecca White.

Mark Walensky. Suzanne Wright. I'm sorry, Suzanne?

Yes. Sheila Ann Yang. Joseph Young.

Precinct 4. George Allen. Tanya Banderwitz.

Michael Bryson present. Gary Callahan. Lisa Carangelo.

Yes? Yes. Anne Codalessa.

Tori Brooks Cummings. Martha Dansdill. Yes.

Terrence Dansdill. Thomas Dolly. Kathleen Day.

Mary DiCillo. Joseph Damalowicz. Edward Dooley.

Yes. Nicole Dooley. Yes.

Timothy Dorsey. Yes. Was that a yes?

Yes. Justin Epley. Mia Fasella.

Anita Farber-Robertson. Mary Ellen Fletcher.

[Speaker 42] (2:14:30 - 2:14:30)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:31 - 2:15:26)
Jennifer Ford. Joseph Ford. John Ghiantis.

Wayne Godfrey. No. Brendan Gordinas.

Kathleen Grian. Yes. Merle Hyman.

Stephen Iannacone. Richard Jackius. Anne Johnson.

Michael Kelleher. Yes. Edward Kennedy.

No. Jaron Landon. Tanya Lilick.

Gary Lord. Nancy Lord. Michael McClung.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:26 - 2:15:27)
Present.

[Speaker 4] (2:15:28 - 2:17:42)
Cinder McInerney. Yes. Casey Mohan.

Sierra Munoz. Mary Nevels. Justina Oliver.

Albert Pica. Dennis Palote. Mara Palote.

Anne Potts. George Potts. No.

Amy Powell. William Quinn. Kevin Rogers.

Leonard Russo. Robert Scheer. Neil Sheehan.

Rachel Smullen. That was a no? Aaron Burdorf.

Deborah Kniff. Diana Kaplan. Anthony Serra.

Martha Cezars. Clifford Charney. Loretta Conley.

Rupert Dease. Mark Ficken. Yes.

Lara Goodman. Maurice Greenbaum. Barry Greenfield.

Stephanie Greenfield. Doreen Hodgkin. Angela Ippolito.

Glenn Kessler. Amy Kyle. Monica Lagerquist.

Terry Lorber.

[Speaker 39] (2:17:43 - 2:17:43)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:17:44 - 2:20:44)
Peter Masucci. Stephanie Newman. Anna O'Brien.

Thomas O'Neill. Harry Pass. Charles Patios.

Yes. Paulina Patios. Jeannie Patz.

No. Neil Pearlstein. Greg Racky.

Adrian Rodriguez. Heather Roman Masucci. Alfred Rose.

Shelley Sackett. Eric Schneider. Yes.

Jenna Sheridan. Joseph Simons. Lynette Simons.

No. James Smith. Jill Sullivan.

Jill Susare. Roger Talkov. Douglas Thompson.

Yes. Stephanie Tucker. David Van Dam.

David Tasia Vasilio. Bruce Ware. Heidi Ware.

Andrew Whitman. Karen Whitman. Yes.

Maria Williams. Stephen Williams. Stephen?

No. Jacqueline Wilson. Irma Zyrinski.

Kiko Zoll. Precinct 6. Barry Atkin.

Robert Baker. No. Gloria Beaupre.

Jack Bierman. Yes. Scott Burke.

Seth Kaplan. Tara Cassidy Driscoll. Damon Damadi.

Claire Dambowski. William Demento. Thomas Driscoll.

Norman Ehrlich.

[Speaker 38] (2:20:45 - 2:20:45)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:20:46 - 2:21:01)
Scott Fillenworth. Hillary Fouts. Debbie Friedlander.

No. Marzi Golaska. Betty Gallo.

[Speaker 17] (2:21:02 - 2:21:02)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:03 - 2:21:27)
Donald Giard. Anne Gold. I'm sorry, Anne?

Yes. Kelsey Henry. No.

Trevor Henry. No. Lisa Hickey.

Yes. Mark Kornitsky.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:27 - 2:21:28)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:28 - 2:22:29)
Irene Lehman. Yes. Jonathan Lehman.

Yes. Cheryl Levinson. Yes.

Bonnie Levine. Yes. Robert Levine.

Judith Locke. Yes. Nancy Maloney.

Mary Marshall. Yes. Marianne McDermott.

Tara Jo Mylinski. Matthew O'Connell. Yes.

Amy O'Connor. Mary O'Hare. Thomas Peleria.

Sarah Plymate. Brendan Reen. No.

Amy Reese. Kim Rotner.

[Speaker 6] (2:22:29 - 2:22:30)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:31 - 2:22:32)
Philip Rotner.

[Speaker 6] (2:22:32 - 2:22:32)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:33 - 2:23:29)
Alexis Runstadler. Yes. Ethan Runstadler.

Joel Sapp. Edward Siegelman. Oh, Seligman.

Carol Schutzer. Kenneth Schutzer. Yes.

Jill Simmons-Wetmore. Allison Stewart. Yes.

Matthew Weinberg. Jeffrey Wilson. Yes.

Christopher Winter. Yes. David Zucker.

Yes. Thank you. Are there any town meeting members who were not called?

[Speaker 1] (2:23:37 - 2:29:59)
That's not the way this works. Okay, this meeting will stand recessed for 90 seconds while I confer with the clerk. Please be seated.

I know that spending two and a half hours on one question is an effort, but since it is the biggest expenditure we make as a town, I think it is fully worth all of the time and effort you all have put into it. By a vote of 137, 496 against, the motion carries. We come now to Article 15, FY25 Capital Projects.

Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 30] (2:30:02 - 2:31:15)
The Finance Committee recommends the town vote to appropriate $7,121,991 for the purpose and in the amount identified in Article 15 of the Printed Warrant as shown under the column heading Finance Committee recommended in said Article 15 and to meet this appropriation, number one, transfer $56,900 from the Recreation Revolving Fund to fund a portion of the cost for item number 21. Second, authorize the treasurer with the approval of the Select Board to borrow $7,065,091 under GAL Chapter 44, Section 7 or 8 or any other enabling authority to pay costs of all other capital projects included in Article 15, including as applicable equipping of capital items to be acquired and all incidental and related costs, each numbered item to be considered a separate appropriation with the budgeted amount to be spent only for the stated purpose.

I move the recommendation of the Finance Committee.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:15 - 2:31:19)
Is there a second? Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 30] (2:31:20 - 2:31:50)
So as stated yesterday in connection with Article 14, CIC, Capital Improvements Committee, recommends certain capital improvements to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee meets, discusses them, meets with department heads to understand the scope, timing and the funding sources for each project, and reviews those in connection with the debt service schedule and the schedule and the timing of these projects.

[Speaker 42] (2:31:52 - 2:31:53)
Thank you, Mr. Schneider.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:53 - 2:31:58)
Mr. Hale, can you give the Capital Improvements Committee report?

[Speaker 10] (2:31:58 - 2:31:59)
Thanks.

[Speaker 15] (2:31:59 - 2:34:34)
I'm Ryan Hale from Precinct 2, also chair of the Capital Improvement Committee. I'll keep my remarks brief tonight. Anyone is welcome to peruse the letter in Appendix A for a little more detail about our process.

I'm going to boil it down for everybody into three themes that motivate me and the committee. The first one is alignment. The second one is value.

And the third one is transparency. Alignment means making sure that how we spend our capital funds every year is consistent with what we think our priorities are for the community. And the way we understand what those are is by everyone here and the other members of our community participating in the process.

So our CIC meetings are public. You're welcome to come and voice your opinion into where you think those priorities are so we can help align our spending with those priorities. The second one is value.

So CIC does not recommend projects. We don't propose how to spend the money. What we do is evaluate projects that are brought to us for the value that they can bring to our community.

So we ask questions about is it better to rent or buy equipment? Can we find better pricing? Is it better to spend the money now or spend the money later?

We talk about our ability to execute on those projects with the limited resources of our department heads. So our role is really to evaluate each project and make sure it represents good value for the tax money that we will spend to execute those projects. And the third principle is transparency.

So we publish the plans that we have every year. Tonight we're focused on the appropriation for the coming fiscal year and we're working to improve the accuracy of our projections over multiple years. We really want to have a true capital plan, not a one at a time, a one year at a time projection.

We're also working with the folks from the departments who execute the projects to do retrospectives of how the money was spent in previous years. Did we ask for the right amount? Did we face any unanticipated costs in executing the projects?

Basically, what did we learn and how can we take those learnings to inform future investments? So that's a little bit about what drives the committee. Again, I'd welcome everyone to attend our public meetings to participate.

My final comment tonight, just on behalf of the committee, is to acknowledge two members of the committee whose terms come to an end, Kelly Began and Dave Brodsky. Thank you very much for your years of service to the community. Thank you, Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:35 - 2:35:00)
Just a note before we begin debate, much as with the budget and with the capital items last night, this is an omnibus motion. You are voting on each individual line item that is numbered. Each can be discussed, debated, amended in its own right and we will vote the final amount.

That said, is there discussion, commentary? Ma'am, in the back there.

[Speaker 31] (2:35:07 - 2:35:42)
Hi, Jacqueline Wilson, Precinct 5. I just have some questions about a few of the line items. Let me find it again.

The town hall basement renovation design, what does that entail? What are we doing? How are we using it?

And the library entries, so line item 10 and line item 14, is the entries to make it ADA compliant? Is this to allow people into the library? What does that entail?

[Speaker 1] (2:35:43 - 2:35:55)
I do have some detail to it, but I have also been informed it's some structural work, Mr. Hale or Mr. Schneider, and as far as the basement, please.

[Speaker 15] (2:35:56 - 2:36:09)
Sure. I think if the town administrator has a more complete vision for the basement, I would welcome his comments. I think the improvements to the library entry are mainly for accessibility and safety of the structure.

[Speaker 2] (2:36:11 - 2:37:23)
Sure. Town hall basement is accessible with an elevator that goes to the basement. It has HVAC ducts, the thought is after the pandemic, this is the largest space that we have at town hall.

We have a very small conference room, and activating this space will help ensure that town hall can have larger meetings for our committees and more public participation. Oftentimes, when we have large meetings at town hall, folks will actually spill out into the hallways, and so this gives us a chance to really invest in our town hall and use it for its broader utility. As far as the library, the library has worked over the last year to really look at egresses and access.

This does help address some issues with the front of the library and ensure that we have more accommodations. It also will improve a number of areas around the library. We have some detailed information on that.

I'm certainly happy to answer any additional questions.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:24 - 2:37:32)
Thank you, Mr. Gerald. I see Ms. Vasiliu, one in the back, and then over there.

[Speaker 29] (2:37:41 - 2:38:04)
I'd like to make a motion to amend Article 15, Item 11, which is the town hall basement renovation design, and change that to, oh 14, sorry, to read improvements to Swampscott Middle School.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:05 - 2:38:12)
I'm sorry, that is improvements to Swampscott Middle School on the current capital project? You would like to add it to which line?

[Speaker 29] (2:38:13 - 2:38:23)
There isn't one specifically for that amount, but there is a major renovation for the Swampscott Middle School scheduled for 2029.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:24 - 2:38:31)
You may move to delete this amount. It would not be in order for you to add an item that did not appear in the warrant.

[Speaker 29] (2:38:34 - 2:38:40)
Okay, the reason I would like to do that is because the middle school currently has...

[Speaker 1] (2:38:40 - 2:38:47)
Okay, ma'am, if you would like to move to zero this item out, you may move to amend that.

[Speaker 29] (2:38:47 - 2:38:52)
Okay, I will move to strike that item, Line Item 14.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:52 - 2:38:54)
Okay, may I have that in writing, please, to the clerk?

[Speaker 29] (2:38:55 - 2:38:56)
I'll just have to revise this.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:59 - 2:39:58)
The reason for this, just for new members here, the purpose of the warrant, the purpose of this document is to give adequate warning to all town meeting members and all residents what is to be discussed. If we add something in that hasn't been in here, hasn't duly warned members of the community what could be spent, it's a violation of state law. So, mind you, if there had been a middle school structural roof or whatnot in here, I would be perfectly happy to have one item reduced, another item increased.

All right, is there a second to Ms. Vassilio's motion? Ms. Vassilio.

[Speaker 29] (2:40:03 - 2:41:34)
Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that for me. The reason I'd like to strike that is because this really feels like a nice-to-have.

There are how many employees at Town Hall? Maybe 30. And there are other needs in town which are much greater.

I specifically was thinking about the middle school, which we saw this beautiful new school building that was built for our elementary school students last night. Some of the highlights in that were working faucets, beautiful windows. I just want you to know, my daughter came home a couple weeks ago and was telling me that her teacher had to take duct tape out to stop the water from leaking in through the windows in her classroom.

There's been a major rodent problem over there. During that same rainstorm, there was a great deal of water that was coming in through the theater, and the whole back curtain was wet. The school needs work, and we should not be spending a penny on any nice-to-haves until all the children can have equity in their school buildings.

Waiting until 2029 is too long, and so I know everyone was very passionate about the schools earlier and our teachers, and I think that they should also be in safe, secure buildings that are free of rodents and dry. So I hope you support that.

[Speaker 14] (2:41:34 - 2:41:35)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:35 - 2:41:46)
Thank you, Ms. Vassilio. Is there further discussion on Ms. Vassilio's amendment to delete the funding under Line 14? Mr. Dulett.

[Speaker 6] (2:42:00 - 2:43:14)
Oh, sorry, Joe Dulett, Precinct 3. This is something that Sean and I have been talking about, and he's been proposing for a long time, as there is not sufficient space necessarily, or sufficient access to space for the amount of meetings that not only the town employees need, sometimes the elected boards as well, and being back and forth with him on this as someone who supports these meetings, I understand the need for a space that is truly for the town employees, and I've come to the appreciation of this idea, which is to create a space that's specifically in Town Hall to support the work of this elect board.

They often have to come to the school, and they have to negotiate and fight for space up here. There's plenty of space at times, but at times it's not that easy. So I think this $50,000 is a design study, and I'm not saying this is in place of doing the repairs necessary at the middle school.

All this stuff is necessary to happen, but I do want to just put my support behind the feasibility study for this, because I think it's a viable space for an elected board that often has a hard time finding spaces to meet in. So just wanted to add that.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:14 - 2:43:26)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dulett. Any further discussion on Ms. Vassilio's amendment?

Yes, no, in front of Ms. Vassilio there.

[Speaker 31] (2:43:30 - 2:43:45)
On Linsley Precinct 1, I agree with Tasia that this is a nice to have. I think we do have other areas such as the library and the police station that we can use for some bigger meetings, and $50,000 at this point isn't something we need to be investing in. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:47 - 2:43:55)
Thank you. Before I call Ms. Lai, we've spoken several times. Is there anybody who hasn't spoken that feels strongly about this?

Ms. Lai.

[Speaker 3] (2:44:08 - 2:44:56)
Marlau, Precinct 3. So from sitting on a select board, or sitting at a select board meeting, Sean, I recall that the $50,000 was not a design, but it was a consulting fee, because one of the select board members asked that specifically, and that the $50,000 was just a consulting fee. So could you expand on that?

I am not in favor of this, but I think a full scope of information would be interesting. And then, Tasia, if I could kind of just add on for the need at the middle school, when my 8th grader was there in the library, yeah, there was a fire because he plugged something into the middle. So yes, our schools do need work, specifically the middle school.

And his name is Carson, and so now his nickname is Arson Carson.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:56 - 2:45:01)
Thank you, Ms. Lai. Thank you. We'll stick to the topic at hand.

Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:45:01 - 2:45:02)
And he has red hair.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:04 - 2:45:05)
Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (2:45:06 - 2:45:07)
Just trying to keep it lively.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:08 - 2:45:08)
Thank you, ma'am.

[Speaker 2] (2:45:08 - 2:45:31)
Happy to give you some additional. So Town Hall is on the National Historic Register, so we'd actually have to hire a specific type of architectural services. They do generally consult, but we did want to get some preliminary design information that could help us advance the project.

It's in the capital plan for a few years, so if you go to...

[Speaker 3] (2:45:31 - 2:45:38)
So, Sean, yeah, lean into the microphone. And so, yes, it is $50,000 in consulting, just like, yes or no?

[Speaker 2] (2:45:39 - 2:45:43)
Yes, it's for a consultant, but the project will be about $350,000.

[Speaker 3] (2:45:44 - 2:45:51)
Exactly, right? So it's a $50,000 consulting fee, and then the project would be $350,000.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:51 - 2:45:53)
Okay, we are talking about the $50,000.

[Speaker 3] (2:45:53 - 2:45:56)
Okay, so that's a lot, right? Just so we have a full idea.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:57 - 2:45:59)
We are talking about the $50,000.

[Speaker 3] (2:45:59 - 2:46:00)
Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:00 - 2:46:07)
If you have not had an answer to your question, I will press Mr. Fitzgerald. Is this design consulting? Is it other consulting?

[Speaker 2] (2:46:07 - 2:46:19)
It's design consulting. We're hiring a specific type of architect that deals with buildings that are on a National Historic Register and that are historic. Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:46:20 - 2:46:45)
So, in general, I definitely see that the town needs more space for our meetings, for our tremendous amount of committees and such. But at this time, I just would have to say that I'd like to see this taken off as well, and I would be in support of taking it off at this time. Had we moved forward and used Hadley as public space, then that could have been an option.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:45 - 2:46:46)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 3] (2:46:47 - 2:46:47)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:46:48 - 2:46:53)
Is there further discussion of Ms. Vassiliou's amendments? Mr. Hale.

[Speaker 15] (2:46:54 - 2:47:21)
I just want to make sure that all the town meeting members are aware of item—oops, I have to look at the right table to give you the right number. Row 11 on the plan for this coming year is $180,000 to be spent on security improvements for the middle school, and that project was the specific repairs for that building that were prioritized in discussions with the department heads and the administration. So that's the money that we're spending on the middle school this year.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:22 - 2:47:44)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. Further discussion of the amendment to strike this amount? Ma'am?

No one at home will be able to hear you. I'm sorry. Just for perpetuity, this is the record of our proceedings.

It goes on video.

[Speaker 40] (2:47:46 - 2:47:47)
Precinct 6.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:48 - 2:48:00)
The line item says middle school security upgrades. It doesn't say building upgrades. It doesn't say roof repairs.

Can I have just a clarification of that?

[Speaker 40] (2:48:00 - 2:48:02)
What is security upgrade?

[Speaker 1] (2:48:03 - 2:48:15)
Mr. Hale. Would you defer to Mr. Casper to— Max can speak to that one. Thank you.

Mr. Casper, our head of facilities. Thank you.

[Speaker 38] (2:48:25 - 2:48:58)
The middle school security upgrade project is primarily to add a layer of storefront to the front entry of the middle school to create a security vestibule. So it's common practice. You'll see it at the new school to enter one set of doors, you'll be in a vestibule, and then you're let into a second set of doors.

It's also an energy efficiency measure, so we have that here at the high school. We will have it at the elementary school in the fall, and we're working on this project to add that at the middle school. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (2:48:59 - 2:49:06)
Thank you, Mr. Casper. Further questions or discussions on the amendment? Way in the back, ma'am.

[Speaker 37] (2:49:11 - 2:49:34)
Martha Caesars, 80 Neeson Road, Precinct 5. My question really has to do with the whole idea of the capital improvements in terms of what we're doing with the money. For this particular one, I've come across about $135,000 in contracted services in the budget already.

Couldn't Sean use that money to pay this consultant?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:37 - 2:49:55)
Okay, I'll allow it. The question is whether or not this could be capitalized or whether we could add an additional $50,000 to the budget in operating costs. I believe the budget is already spoken for, but yes, we could pay as we go instead of borrowing, certainly.

[Speaker 37] (2:49:55 - 2:50:02)
So when it's defined as contracted services, isn't that what this is? I just heard you say we're contracting with a consultant.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:03 - 2:50:10)
I can ask the town administrator what he is spending the operating line item for. I assure you it's not this.

[Speaker 2] (2:50:10 - 2:50:40)
So these are capital projects, and so anything that has a life cycle that really is greater than five years is supported through the capital investments. We don't use operating budgets for things that have that type of life cycle value. Consulting fees are really generally for things that come up during the year that we need support for, capital planning, capital budgets, really look at a five to 30-year horizon worth of projects.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:40 - 2:50:46)
Similar to how you and I, maybe you pay cash for your car. I can't afford to pay cash for my car.

[Speaker 37] (2:50:46 - 2:51:06)
But I guess I was looking at this in terms of another capital improvement, and it says it's useful life of three years. So this particular $50,000 is for one year, and then you're saying that at the end of this next year it would be maybe $350,000. How can a consultant fee be a capital improvement?

I don't understand that.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:06 - 2:51:16)
By state law, if the portion of the project is for a duration longer than three years, it is eligible as a capital expense.

[Speaker 37] (2:51:16 - 2:51:21)
So are we voting then for a $350,000 improvement to Town Hall?

[Speaker 1] (2:51:21 - 2:51:21)
We are not.

[Speaker 37] (2:51:22 - 2:51:24)
Only the $50,000 for one year?

[Speaker 1] (2:51:25 - 2:51:34)
A $50,000 expense for the design consulting that would be capitalizable because of the nature of the project. Right.

[Speaker 37] (2:51:35 - 2:51:56)
And in the warrant itself, I was reading it, the things that we're supposed to do with the capital improvement money is to acquire land, development for public access, building purchases, which we have, road and infrastructure, technological purchases, vehicles, equipment, machinery. Nothing in that talks about hiring a consultant to design something.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:57 - 2:52:25)
Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Further discussion about Ms. Veseliu's amendment to strike this amount?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment to remove this amount, please raise your hand. All those opposed? The amendment fails.

We now return to the omnibus motion to discuss all of these articles. I have a Ms. Zoll. Yes, please.

[Speaker 9] (2:52:29 - 2:52:58)
Keiko Zoll, Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member. I have submitted an amendment to the moderator and clerk's email addresses for line item 21. Before I share that amendment, I have a couple of clarifying questions.

When we say mobile LED trailer, what is that and where will it go?

[Speaker 1] (2:52:59 - 2:53:08)
Mr. Hale. Ms. Strauss, out of the Recreation Department.

[Speaker 20] (2:53:10 - 2:54:45)
Yes, I'm Danielle Strauss, Recreation Director and Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member. I'm actually really excited about this for our community, really excited about it. This is an LED screen that's on a trailer with its own audio equipment and everything on it.

The screen that we have now that we've had for about 10 years, we can't use it anymore. We couldn't even have movies last summer. My job is to create community and quality of life.

And this is part of quality of life. This mobile screen can be driven down to Fisherman's Beach, parked in a parking space, the screen goes up, it can be turned in any direction, and you could be watching Jaws on the beach. I don't need a crew of people putting up a big screen, trying not to have the wind blow it away, and impale somebody with the stakes.

And that's happened so many times that I've said, nope, no movie tonight. People get down to Town Hall Lawn and I'm like, no, I can't do this. So, I hope that answers your question.

But I have so many great ideas for this screen. I was watching the Kentucky Derby and I was like, oh my God, we could be watching the Kentucky Derby on Town Hall Lawn, all of us together and cheering them on. And I've got like a million ideas.

I won't go through them all, but it is so exciting. And we can pay for half of it out of the Rec Revolving account. So, it's a win.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:46 - 2:54:53)
Thank you, Danielle. Ms. Rohl, do you still have an amendment in mind?

[Speaker 20] (2:54:53 - 2:54:54)
I do.

[Speaker 9] (2:54:55 - 2:55:30)
So, and I say this as somebody who's married to somebody who works in the LED industry. This is a nice to have, folks. Let's think about the money that we just shot down for our schools and for our students.

I'm all for movie nights on the lawn. I'm more for the lifelong health, stability, wellness, and education of our children. And so, I move to strike the full amount of $111,900 from line item 21 to zero.

[Speaker 1] (2:55:31 - 2:55:36)
Is there a second? Second. Would you care to speak further to your amendment?

[Speaker 9] (2:55:37 - 2:55:39)
Nope. That's it.

[Speaker 1] (2:55:40 - 2:55:54)
Is there someone else who would care to speak to Ms. Rohl's amendment to strike line 21? I am in receipt of the amendment. It's in your email as well.

Yes, Ms. Phelan.

[Speaker 7] (2:55:58 - 2:57:09)
Kids don't just learn in the classroom. Ms. Phelan, precinct three, select board member. Kids learn in community members, in community events, among other community members with kids they don't go to school with of different age groups and different diversity backgrounds and different socioeconomic backgrounds.

And the way that we encourage them to do that is to bring them all on town lawn and let them play together and let them watch a movie and let their parents have a break. And the best thing about this LED trailer is that the child related movies can be shown earlier because the summer it gets dark out later and the LED back light makes it so that the movies can start earlier so that your kids can go to bed at a reasonable hour so you can get a break. So, there are other benefits to this including we've talked about potentially renting out the trailer, having it capitalize itself, having it pay for itself so that other community members might be able to something to look into.

I don't know that we've nailed that down but I think that I totally agree that education happens in the classroom but it happens elsewhere too and we shouldn't cut off our nose to spite our face. Give the trailer to Danielle.

[Speaker 1] (2:57:10 - 2:57:16)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan. Gentleman in the back and then Mr. Patsios, then the gentleman behind Mr. Patsios.

[Speaker 11] (2:57:18 - 2:58:58)
Precinct one. Sorry, am I on here? Frank Smith, I heard.

Thank you. So, yeah, we've talked a lot tonight about different light items that come and go and there's feelings one way or the other about things that have been shot down or brought to board and whatever. Long story short is there's also some place to have some fun in this town and that's why we're here.

We have a seaside community. It's really a nice place to live and not for nothing but Danielle, you do a great job of putting on some really great stuff. I'll be the first to say that Danielle and I, we don't always see eye to eye.

It's true but for what it's worth, this is a great idea. Why not? Let's expand what we're already doing.

Let's take advantage of what we have here and take it to the next level. Danielle has been really great about having foresight and seeing things for what they are down the line and how we can use them to kind of make things a little bit more fun in town and when we're looking at data, we're looking at school things, we're looking at all these things that are really hard numbers and we're having hard decisions to make. At the end of the day, there's families involved.

There's community involved and we're here because we all are part of this community and so while some people might say, yes, it's nice to have, yeah, it's really nice to have and we just saved some money tonight so let's make this work. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[Speaker 1] (2:58:58 - 2:59:03)
Mr. Patsios and then behind Mr. Patsios.

[Speaker 8] (2:59:06 - 2:59:07)
I'm going to get in my steps.

[Speaker 1] (2:59:09 - 2:59:10)
I kid, I kid.

[Speaker 8] (2:59:18 - 3:00:42)
Charlie Patsios, Precinct 5 and I didn't mention I'm the Governor's appointee to the Housing Authority and I'm also the Chair of the Housing Authority and the reason I mentioned that is because this screen would probably mean a lot to people in the Housing Authority that might not be able to get out and do other things because of limitations. I think it's a great idea. It's on, it's properly, it's gone through the process, it's in here, everyone knows what it is and quite honestly, I'm troubled the fact that we're now taking some, we're treating other things on this warrant tonight and we're punishing those things because someone didn't like the way a vote went.

That's my impression. I don't look at what people do, I look at why people do it and I think it's apparent to me anyways and as a town we shouldn't be poking each other in the eye because we didn't like it. We didn't like what happened earlier.

I feel that's what's happening right now. Please, please don't, don't go to that level. I think we're much better than that.

I just want to just say I think it's a great idea and thank you for following the process. Thank you Mr. Patsios. Sir?

[Speaker 40] (3:00:53 - 3:02:07)
Hello Alpica Precinct 4. I'd like to just speak to the idea that this would bring to the town. I think it's a really great idea.

I've dealt with Danielle and her group firsthand as on the Little League Board of Directors and it's been a real challenge. I know I've experienced it and dealt with the number of hours and labor that is involved in getting up a screen only for it to then be canceled because we have a little bit of wind or a little bit of rain. We've done a number of these events up at the ball fields behind the middle school as well.

They've been really successful. We have a concession stand and I know Danielle would be eager to work with us again if we were able to get this in place. I also just want to echo the comments I think Mr. Patsios just made. I think it's really important that we don't tie what just happened with the school vote into every line item in this article or in other articles. I'm speaking on someone who just was in favor of giving more money to the schools. I'm saying that just as a trying to be practical and level-headed about the way the rest of the debate should be held for the of this article.

Thanks. Thank you Mr. Pica. Ms. Curry.

[Speaker 14] (3:02:13 - 3:02:34)
Martha Curry, Precinct 3. I just wanted to call attention to how it's being funded and because Danielle has led successful programming, half of it's coming from the revolving fund and only half, 55,000, is borrowed. So I'm guessing it will last at least five years.

That's not much money per year.

[Speaker 1] (3:02:34 - 3:03:04)
Thank you Ms. Curry. I will underscore for some of our newer members the revolving fund is supported by user fees, potentially by donations as well. Is there further discussion on Ms. Zoll's amendment to strike line 21?

Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment to strike this amount, please raise your hand. All those opposed? The motion fails.

We return now to the main omnibus motion. Ms. O'Connor.

[Speaker 24] (3:03:09 - 3:03:29)
Hi. I apologize that I have not paid attention to the CIC meetings. Can you just talk a little bit about the EV charging stations, specifically whether or not there was talk about like privatizing versus leasing?

I know that there are lots of partners, private partners, who also do this. Just curious.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:30 - 3:03:35)
Thank you. Mr. Hale or perhaps Mr. Casper again?

[Speaker 15] (3:03:36 - 3:03:37)
You want to give a shot?

[Speaker 1] (3:03:45 - 3:03:47)
Those of you following along, this is line six.

[Speaker 38] (3:03:52 - 3:04:35)
So currently the town owns charging stations and operates them at two locations here at the high school and at the town hall. We are looking at many additional locations. Luckily there's very good grant funding available so we're able to leverage grant funding and only pay a small amount depending on the specific project.

So we will have chargers at the new elementary school in the fall opening up. And then we're currently looking at locations at Blox's Field and a variety of other locations throughout town. And it's ownership model as of right now.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:36 - 3:04:44)
Thank you, Mr. Casper. Further questions on Mr. Schneider's motion to adopt these? Mr. Russo?

[Speaker 34] (3:04:52 - 3:05:26)
Hi, Lenny Russo, precinct four. I also had a question on the EVs. Maybe you could elaborate a little further.

So kudos to you on the EV van for the senior center. Great use for short-term, long-term charging. But on the EV stations, I noticed the ones out here being used by the public.

How many EV stations are we talking about for the 70 on line item six? Where would they specifically be? And are any going to be dedicated like for the senior center van or are they for public use and how do they get paid for?

[Speaker 1] (3:05:27 - 3:05:33)
Great question. Thank you, Mr. Russo. Again, Mr. Hale, I'll rely on you.

[Speaker 15] (3:05:34 - 3:06:02)
Sure. So the primary intent is for public use. And we have a few sites that, as Max mentioned, have been picked out around town.

So further towards Phillips Park and towards the sort of Hadley area. But the intention is to make these charges available for people who visit town to come to our businesses and beaches. Of course, they're open for use by residents as well.

But I think the primary audience is for visitors.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:04 - 3:06:08)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. Yes, there was a question about how many and where.

[Speaker 15] (3:06:09 - 3:06:42)
I think we're doing like three a year, is that right? It's like two or three a year, isn't it? For the 75k?

Right. But in terms of charging units per year, it was like two or three actual charges a year, right? Yeah, I can look it up for you.

But it's a few a year. It's not 50. It's a handful.

So most of the expenses are going towards the concrete pads, the wiring that needs to be installed, the infrastructure to support those charging stations.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:42 - 3:06:45)
And the locations considered so far?

[Speaker 15] (3:06:45 - 3:06:51)
We said Blocksedge Field and the Fish House. Sorry. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (3:06:52 - 3:07:13)
Thank you, Mr. Hale. And the other question was, are any of these dedicated to town purposes? Not to my knowledge, but I can go back through the requests if you'd like.

Thank you, Mr. Hale. Further discussion on Mr. Schneider's motion? Ma'am?

[Speaker 42] (3:07:19 - 3:07:29)
Hi, Andrea Moore, Precinct 3. I just have a couple of questions. One is on line item 24.

Can you explain more about the Swampscott Community Life Center Feasibility Study?

[Speaker 1] (3:07:32 - 3:07:41)
Okay. Certainly. And I can either ask Mr. Hale or the sponsoring department.

[Speaker 15] (3:07:42 - 3:07:49)
So again, this is the first phase of the design for that. I would invite the administrator to share his vision for that facility.

[Speaker 1] (3:07:50 - 3:08:16)
And I saw Mr. Powell, the chair of Swampscott for all ages here. I don't know if you have a perspective to share. Or Ms. Weir, the head of the senior council on aging. I am reliably informed there's a presentation.

[Speaker 20] (3:08:19 - 3:08:23)
If you don't want the presentation and you would just like us to speak to this, we can do that.

[Speaker 42] (3:08:23 - 3:08:24)
That sounds great.

[Speaker 20] (3:08:24 - 3:08:24)
Okay.

[Speaker 42] (3:08:25 - 3:08:25)
That sounds good.

[Speaker 20] (3:08:26 - 3:10:27)
Thanks. All right. I'll start.

If the first slide up there was what space does recreation have? It would be blank. I have no space to run programs or to have meetings.

There's no space for parents with young children. Let me back up. The school has been really good about giving me space for programs.

But it is a school. And we cannot use it during the day. And I see so many uses for parents with young children to have classes, jimboree, for we need an indoor gymnasium.

We can't use the school's gymnasiums. The schools are using the school's gymnasiums. And we need those spaces for pickleball and preschool classes.

We need community rental space for birthdays, extended family gatherings and other events. We need options for after school activities. Teenagers don't have a space for group study and to socialize and play.

They have the library and Jonathan's done a really great job with a space for teenagers. But they need more space. They need a place to play.

We need options for families, mother and infant group. We need evening and weekend hours. Every time I use the schools, I have to pay for a custodian.

And then Heidi can talk about the special spaces that she needs for the senior center. The senior center is too small for the amount of seniors that are going there. And we feel, and Heidi can speak to it, but we feel if we partner together and have a community life center, we can have all of these things for our community.

But we have to start with a feasibility study. Want to add?

[Speaker 7] (3:10:30 - 3:12:00)
Katie Phelan, Select Board, Precinct 3. Sort of the birth child of this idea was sort of finding all the holes that each of these members had and figuring out a way to reunite the senior center with multi-generational education and in a post-COVID era, bringing community members together instead of separating them. And we have had some conversations about creating a life center, which I know Mary DiCillo came to one of the select board meetings and explained in great detail what the purpose originally was for the high school and how it's supposed to be this great community space.

And while there have been times where it is available, it is increasingly more and more difficult and there's an expense involved to using that space. And so, you know, this initial project is meant to, number one, look at the spaces that are available in town and determine if any of them can solve any of these needs. And number two, if they cannot, what should be the next step before we come to you and just propose a giant building that you all really don't want to fund unless there's a purpose to it?

We have to figure out what we have available, how it fits or does not fit our needs, and then from there come up with a sound proposal so that we can go forward and facilitate the needs of not just children or seniors, but really our community at large.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:00 - 3:12:03)
Thank you, Ms. Phelan. Ms. Weir?

[Speaker 24] (3:12:05 - 3:14:39)
Just very briefly, I'm going to run through a few pictures that we have up here at the Senior Center, and I want you all just to let it sink in a minute that within eight years, 33 percent of our population in Swampscott will be over the age of 60. So right now, we have 6,500 square feet, and a typical community life center would be 15 to 30,000 square feet. Next slide.

We are serving breakfast for veterans on a regular basis. We have meetings and coffees, and we use the space so frequently for so many different things, including our dining room. Next slide, please.

Turns from a Zumba room to a yoga room to a dance hall on a regular basis every single day. We don't have staff to move furniture. We all move it ourselves.

And our dining room now seats about 60 comfortably, and we turn people away all the time. Next slide. This is our old exercise room, and so now we do all the exercise in our dining room because there's just not enough space for all the line dancing and all the other things.

And I think the other thing that we're really missing is a space for men. We don't have places like a billiards room would be wonderful for folks to come and play, or a ping-pong room some of the senior centers have. The other thing is it's a fix-it shop where people come and you can bring different things to have them repaired.

Next slide. And we just need to have more fun. We don't stop having fun when we get older.

We need to have more and more fun, and like I said, we're turning people away. Isolation is an epidemic in our country right now. So next slide.

The other thought we had was to make sure that we're welcoming other organizations to our community, and you can see the Girl Scouts here with the multi-generational programming that we're doing now. And the final slide for me is just to show you Harvard did a longitudinal study recently, actually not recently, it was over about six generations. One of the results they came up with was that how much people who are interacting with youth are about three times happier than those that don't get to interact with youth.

And that's why we feel very strongly that a community life center would be essential for Swanscott. Bob?

[Speaker 22] (3:14:42 - 3:18:10)
Bob Powell, chair of the Council on Aging, co-chair of the Swanscott for All Ages, member of the Retirement Board, member of the Master Plan 2035 plan, and maybe someday we'll form a committee to save our train station. Where's Margie? Next slide, please.

Actually, you can skip that one, go to the next one if you don't mind. Oh, we'll come back to that one. So what I'd like to say is I've done, we have done collectively a lot of research on community life centers across the country, both small, medium size, and large size.

And there are some common amenities that are in all of these life centers. They range in amenities from fitness centers, swimming pools, basketball courts, computer labs, billiard tables, fix-it shops, health and wellness programs, theater and performance space. We're not saying that all those things belong in a community life center that we would build, but those are the things that are available in the rest of the country that we don't have available here.

And some of these things, like a fix-it shop, if you would go to the Peabody Senior Center, men go there and are doing woodworking. And if you go to Long Meadow Community Center, you'll find a fix-it shop where people are fixing clocks and all sorts of things. We don't have a space for that at the moment.

So I'll conclude by saying, and I know there's not a motion on the floor, just a desire to have this be explained, and we wanted to do that fully. I think about the feasibility study as it's not a plan, but it's an opportunity for us to gather essential facts that will enable us to make an informed decision. And in the absence of those facts, all we have are opinions, and opinions aren't facts.

So this study will allow us to assess our current assets, determine our needs and wants, evaluate if there is a gap, and if there's a gap identified, how you will fill that gap. Will it be with existing resources? Will it be with new resources?

Will it be a mix of resources? The study will help us identify where it might be located and how big it will be and what amenities will be in the facility. And if there is no gap found, there won't be any need to create a community life center.

I highly doubt that will be the case, but I think if there is no gap, there won't be a plan to create such a center. And if the gap does exist, we'll look at these sites, the size of the facility, the amenities, and should town meeting approve the construction of such a facility in the future, that entire process will be transparent. There'd be a committee formed with all the stakeholders, recreation department, CIC, senior center, town meeting members, et cetera, et cetera.

We would then draft an RFP, and then from there, we would select a consultant, and from that, we would engage in public meetings, not unlike what we've done with the master plan or other issues with the school building, et cetera, et cetera. So this would be a completely transparent process that would help us look at what the future could be in a world where we want to accommodate people of all ages from one to 100 and improve the quality of life for all residents, not just a select few. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:10 - 3:18:18)
Thank you, Mr. Powell. And thank you to all of you. Thank you.

Is there further discussion? You had another question, ma'am.

[Speaker 42] (3:18:19 - 3:19:02)
Yeah, I think I'm just noticing that, and I don't mean to belabor this, I apologize, but I think one thing that would have been helpful in these line items would have been an understanding of what the investment is for, because if I'm spending $50,000 to then spend $350,000 on the town hall basement design, I wonder, like, what's my $100,000 going toward a project of blank? I think it's hard for me to vote on a $100,000 line item when I don't know if the project at the end is going to cost $5 million to rehabilitate Clark School or $50 million to build a new structure, so it's hard for me to know where I'm throwing my money, just my two cents.

[Speaker 1] (3:19:02 - 3:19:17)
Thank you. I would draw everyone's attention to Appendix A, the capital plan, which lays out the longer term spends in several areas. Is there further discussion on Mr. Schneider's original motion?

Ms. DiCillo.

[Speaker 17] (3:19:28 - 3:23:40)
I'm Mary DiCillo, I'm Precinct 4, former school committee member, former member of the school building committee for this high school, and I just rise tonight to remind people, it's been a long time, this building opened in 2008. The intent when this building was built was that it would, this part of the building from where we are, 129, was until all of this, including the senior center, for which we've actually gotten accolades from architectural, not digest, but we've been given kudos as a community for building and having the foresight to build a senior center attached. The context around that was to open up the facility and have the facility to be a community facility.

In the interim, from 2008 to now, obviously some things have changed. I would encourage a spirit of cooperation. I did hear that Mrs. Strauss, the director of recreation, having to pay for certain things. I know that there are other groups that have had to pay to use this facility. That was not the intention of what this facility was about. Now, as a body and as a community, we may agree and say things have changed since then, but it has become a school rather than this part of the building, the walking track, the field house, the art rooms, the dance room, the weight room, and all of that.

So I would be suggesting, just as a public policy consideration, is to look at, in looking at this kind of feasibility study, to see ways in which we, in fact, can open it up and not be recognizing the need to revisit what was intended, but not be in a hurry to end up building new. Also, space in the town is very limited. I would support the notion of becoming aware of what the needs of the town are, but I do think that background is really important.

People have moved here in the interim who don't know that, and I believe that also in terms of collaborating and cooperating in terms of groups meeting and space and use of space, there may be more of an expanded capacity here in the school than was necessary and, you know, at the time. And so hopefully this will be reveal, this kind of study can reveal something. I'm concerned a little bit about studies.

You know, you have to be able to, what is it that you're measuring? And I think we have to be very accurate about the questions we ask and what kinds of things that are needed and at what ages are needed. I think the aging population is a real consideration here, and I've joined that group myself, and I've been at the senior center and seen the capacity for use.

We also have to include veterans on that list. Please, whatever group that you have meeting, that you include a representative of any committee is my, another advocacy on my part, veterans on that group, that list. So thank you very much.

[Speaker 1] (3:23:41 - 3:23:49)
Thank you, Mr. Chillo. Is there further discussion on this article? Mr. Norton.

[Speaker 34] (3:23:59 - 3:24:04)
Ken Norton, Precinct 3. In regards to the article, you mentioned Appendix A.

[Speaker 1] (3:24:04 - 3:24:05)
Yes.

[Speaker 34] (3:24:05 - 3:24:08)
There was a note in there about a pickleball courts.

[Speaker 1] (3:24:08 - 3:24:09)
Yes.

[Speaker 34] (3:24:09 - 3:24:12)
I think 158 with an asterisk. Could you explain that?

[Speaker 1] (3:24:12 - 3:24:30)
Yes, the asterisks were omitted in the printed warrant, and on behalf of the town staff, apologies. The single asterisk referring to the pickleball courts indicates that it is in the capital plan but is not being advanced based on the vote from the previous special town meeting.

[Speaker 34] (3:24:31 - 3:24:40)
So is there a way to take that $158,000 and fix the rat problem over at the middle school and upgrade it?

[Speaker 1] (3:24:41 - 3:27:13)
The pickleball courts are not on this article. That's not being discussed tonight. It is a different plan that needs some sort of community approval that will get a positive vote.

You're welcome. Yes, ma'am. I do see, I'm sorry, ma'am, your name?

Nicole Dooley, calling the question. This would end debate on Article 15 and Mr. Schneider's notion. Is there a second?

Second. All those in favor? All those opposed?

It carries. We move now to an immediate vote on Mr. Schneider's motion to transfer $56,900 from the rec revolving fund and to authorize the treasurer to borrow $7,065,091. I note that this requires a two-thirds vote as this is a bonding vote.

All those in favor of Mr. Schneider's motion so described, please raise your hand. All those opposed? The motion is unanimous.

We would normally come at this time to Article 16. I note two things. One, the hour and the number of articles left, and I've just been made aware of a scheduling issue, not for tomorrow night.

We will definitely be here tomorrow night unless we stay until the wee hours. It had been my intention to seek a motion to advance the citizen's petition Article 23 prior to Article 20 so that we could discuss these things in the proper order, but I've also been made aware that the petitioner will not be available and will be out of town the rest of this week. With your indulgence, I would accept a motion, Mr. Norton, to advance Article 23 at this point. Is there a second? All those in favor of Mr. Norton's motion to advance Article 23 at this point, please raise your hand. All those opposed?

The motion carries. We now come to Article 23. For the purposes of Article 23, I've asked Mr. Dorsey to step in in my stead. Although I don't see a particular conflict, I have known Mr. Leahy since we both played Pop Warner football together, and I'd rather not color the conversation with any hint of impropriety. Mr. Dorsey, the chair is yours.

[Speaker 18] (3:27:20 - 3:27:31)
Okay. As to Article 23, the citizen's petition article, general bylaw, gas-powered leaf blowers, I'd like to recognize Town Meeting Member Jerry Perry to make the motion.

[Speaker 36] (3:27:39 - 3:28:05)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator. Jerry Perry, Precinct 1. I move, following under Article 23 motion, I move that the Town vote to amend Article 29 of the Town of Swampskiss General Bylaws, gas-powered leaf blowers, by deleting Article 29 in its entirety.

Is there a second?

[Speaker 18] (3:28:05 - 3:28:07)
Is there a second if you made the motion?

[Speaker 36] (3:28:07 - 3:28:49)
Thank you. Speaking on the motion, I was called last week by our elected Town Moderator in the corner here. The petitioner, Mr. Leahy, who I don't know really, I've never met him, but he is not a Town Meeting Member, and as such, he does not have the authority to make a motion. So someone who's an elected Town Meeting Member has to get up here and make the motion so we can proceed with discussion. So I'm just doing that on behalf of the Moderator at his request. I make no advocacy for or against it.

I don't even know how I'm voting for it yet, but I'm just doing this to get it on the table. And with that, Mr. Moderator, I defer to you to recognize whoever you deem appropriate.

[Speaker 18] (3:28:49 - 3:29:17)
Thank you. I appreciate that summary. I'd also point out that a citizen's petition, just for everyone's level set on it, is a way for any citizen, Town Meeting Member or not, to place an article on the warrant, and it's subject to the citizen's meeting certain signature and timeliness requirements, which Mr. Leahy has done. So is Mr. Leahy here? I'm not spotting him. There you are.

[Speaker 19] (3:29:22 - 3:29:49)
Thank you for all of those accommodations. One of the first speakers tonight spoke about how the Town is better together than apart. I have to say, completely off topic, I've had family members living in this town going on a hundred years, and I applaud all of you tonight, and those who have left, on how well this is running.

My grandfather, my mother, me, and my kids.

[Speaker 18] (3:29:49 - 3:29:52)
Mr. Leahy, I do appreciate that. I would like you to stay on topic.

[Speaker 19] (3:29:52 - 3:29:52)
All right.

[Speaker 18] (3:29:53 - 3:29:55)
Well, it was a compliment to all.

[Speaker 19] (3:29:56 - 3:33:36)
Go ahead. Take another minute, but then let's get back on. Might be more than a minute.

I'm sponsoring, or I'm talking about this bylaw because it was put into effect without conversation. One of the first speakers tonight, again, talked about we're better together. One of the concerns is hearing loss.

So there's three Ds, distance, decibel, and duration. For the gas power, 50 feet or under, 85 decibel, and two hours in duration. The electric is 50 feet, 68 decibel, and three hours of duration in order for hearing loss.

These are just things I've heard over the years. Our blowers, gas power blowers, meet California or mass EPA regs for noise and carbon emissions. Electric is quieter, but it has half the airflow.

We'll need twice the equipment. Technology is improving. It's not there yet.

The difference in cost is $2,800 for an electric blower with an extra battery compared to $900. My company would have to have a cap expenditure of $250,000. Smaller companies, between $3,000 and $50,000.

We'd have to purchase and main two types of blowers. I've heard about the carbon footprint. We currently run generators all day long to charge the batteries of these blowers because they only last for an hour and a half.

So we're not reducing the carbon footprint, although we are making headway there on the technology side. Materials that are picked up now go to a composting facility. A lot of materials that we won't be able to pick up because of lack of efficiencies go into the town drains and Swansket town drains go right into the ocean.

Enforcement. We're really asking the police department to enforce this ban. There are existing bylaws, I'll name a few.

All the walkways are to be shoveled by the homeowner after a snowstorm. Doesn't happen, it's not enforceable. Private businesses are not supposed to be run out of homes.

Happens all the time, not enforceable. A flooded space or a basement cannot be discharged. The water cannot be discharged over a public sidewalk.

Not enforceable. Have we really become a society in a town that wants to pass an annoyance bylaw? This is an annoyance bylaw and it's singling out one industry.

What am I proposing? Reverse the ban. I'll sit down with the proponents and talk about things that we do in other communities and on commercial properties.

Training is a huge thing and I will do that. Limiting the hour of operations because this is, from my understanding, more about being annoyed. The pandemic's unintended consequence sent a lot of people home and they don't like our equipment.

They don't like the noise. So I will put a lot of time and effort into trying to find a middle ground. I ask, is this fair?

The bylaw bans gas-powered leaf blowers from Memorial Day to Labor Day, which covers one-third of our season and removes one-third of our equipment from our trailers. Now I say tongue-in-cheek, careful or we're coming for your laptops. But only four months of the year.

Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 18] (3:33:40 - 3:33:46)
Thank you, Mr. Lee. Is there any discussion on the petition? Mr. Thompson.

[Speaker 10] (3:33:56 - 3:35:26)
Doug Thompson, Precinct 5. Vice Chair, Climate Action Committee. Select Board.

I think we had this debate last year. We put this in place last year for a lot of great reasons. Health of the workers.

Disgusting fumes. Noise reduction for all of us. Greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Extremely in line with our unanimously passed Climate Action Plan last year. Many, many, many other communities implementing this just fine. Thank you very much.

Right next door to across the country, entire states have implemented this. The technology is there. Doesn't mean everything is easy.

Doesn't mean everything is simple. It definitely requires change. But we're trying to find a balance here.

We didn't implement it immediately. It's just for part of the season. This is an evolution.

Other communities are moving to year-round bans with significant fines. We are taking this incrementally. Happy to engage in the process and connect people in the industry with others who have made the switch.

I recommend that this motion be disapproved.

[Speaker 18] (3:35:27 - 3:35:36)
Thank you. Is there any other debate or discussion? Yes, sir.

[Speaker 28] (3:35:45 - 3:35:54)
Dennis Pielot, Precinct 4. Just a question. Any idea how many citations or fines have been administered since this has gone into effect?

[Speaker 18] (3:35:55 - 3:36:14)
I will turn that over to others, but I believe the answer is none, which might explain the next Warren article. Oh, sorry. That's right.

I'm understanding that while it was approved last year, it is not in effect until this year.

[Speaker 2] (3:36:14 - 3:36:26)
Yeah, the thought was we'd get this out over the last year, give everybody fair warning, and we'd implement the restrictions this Memorial Day.

[Speaker 18] (3:36:29 - 3:36:30)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 28] (3:36:34 - 3:37:51)
Hi. Mike Kelleher, Precinct 4. I support this petition.

I think it's unfair to some. I know Mr. Leahy has a giant landscaping company, but there's a lot of smaller landscaping companies around that really can't afford this. Some are former graduates of our high school and our school system that run businesses in town, and I think it's really unfair to them.

The electric leaf blowers, or coal-fired leaf blowers, as I call them, they don't do the same job, which is, I mean, if anyone's done it, it's more work. It's going to be a longer noise of electric versus, I just think, you know, ours should be, you know, don't do it early in the morning, late at night, etc. But I think there's a lot of people in town that already have equipment they've purchased in their garages, and this is going to now penalize them that they have to spend in our economy where things, you know, everything has gone up.

Now you have perfectly good equipment. I don't really understand how it's good for the environment to throw that out and then buy new equipment. So that's just all.

I support this, and I hope it goes through.

[Speaker 18] (3:37:53 - 3:37:55)
Thank you. Any other discussion? Yes.

[Speaker 11] (3:38:04 - 3:38:07)
So I'm behind this one, 100 percent, for a number of reasons.

[Speaker 18] (3:38:07 - 3:38:13)
I'm sorry. I called the gentleman here. I didn't see you.

I'm sorry. I called, is it Mr. Norton? Is that who it is?

[Speaker 34] (3:38:15 - 3:38:48)
I'm calling you. I'm recognizing you. Go ahead.

All right. Ken Norton, Precinct 3. I stand to support this.

We're worried about the cost. We reduced it by $400,000. How much more does it cost to go over?

I know Mr. Leahy does town properties. How much more added is that going to cost? You're talking about batteries, plugs into electricity.

What powers electricity, gas, coal, et cetera? Hold on.

[Speaker 18] (3:38:48 - 3:38:49)
Please, please, let him finish.

[Speaker 34] (3:38:52 - 3:38:54)
So I support this. Thank you.

[Speaker 18] (3:38:54 - 3:39:03)
Yeah. And Mr. Potts, let me just call the gentleman that's at the microphone, and you'll be up next. Is it Mr. Smith, am I guessing correctly?

I'm trying to learn the name.

[Speaker 11] (3:39:03 - 3:42:36)
Frank Smith, Precinct 1. I support this, and for a number of reasons. Primarily, we are looking at a budget that is already tight as it is.

I can only imagine that as contracts come back to fruition, and we start looking at bids and things like that, this will be taken into effect. Man hours and the number of people it will require to do the things that need to be done to keep this town looking the way that it does, big contracts for the town itself will take a definite hit. We will be looking at increases one way or the other, given this being in effect.

I can also assume that folks sitting here tonight, if you have a landscaper, if you have someone who does this work for you, you're going to see increases across the board. If you're okay with that, that's fine. But at the same time, you have to ask yourself, is it worth what goes into the back end of making these folks who have built their living on taking care of your properties pay more?

And for what? So that you can have an extra 30 minutes of sleep on a Tuesday morning? Sorry, it's a little bit crazy.

I have to say I support this 100%, not just for the people who are here, but for the people who are beyond here, the people that are in our communities, the people that are in our precincts, and the way that our neighbors operate. There's a cost of living that is going up beyond what most people's salaries are already keeping in check with. And this adds an undue burden to a very specific set that we as a town have said, we want to support these people.

Affordable housing, low income, the haves and have nots. And now we're trying to take something away from them that these are jobs. These are what feeds their families.

These people depend on being able to do the job with a certain profit margin, one way or the other, that I don't think that's being taken into account. And so I would ask you guys to consider with all of this, maybe there's another way to go. I support repealing this until we can have a better option.

Maybe something in terms of timelines or how we operate, or more in particular, could we possibly look at some of the contractors we use in town and whether or not they might be excluded from such a bylaw. I think this needs to be revisited, I guess, in the big picture. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 18] (3:42:37 - 3:42:39)
Mr. Patzios had his hand up first.

[Speaker 8] (3:42:46 - 3:43:58)
Charlie Patzios, Precinct 5. I support this for a variety of reasons. Not that what Doug said is wrong, but we're running gasoline lawnmowers, but we can't use gasoline leaf blowers.

And the equipment that we have to buy, we just got, I think, 10 acres up at Foster Dam, that we're going to expect Genocrestus people to take care of. And they're going to use battery equipment in 10 acres, and they get halfway across and the battery dies, and they got to come back and they got to charge it. I just see, until there's a lot of improvement, I think that, though the intention is great, I think it's flawed.

And Matt's right. The equipment that's going to, and when you delete, when you deplete a battery, that's a hazardous piece of hazardous waste that has to be disposed of properly. And so we solve one problem, but we create two or maybe three.

So I think that, I think it was well-intentioned, but I think it was not thought completely through. So I support this. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 18] (3:44:00 - 3:44:13)
I want to, let me call, I'm going to call one more. The gentleman not in the front, the second one had his hand up. And then.

[Speaker 6] (3:44:15 - 3:44:39)
Annabelle, Precinct 5. It's extremely late, so let's make this quick. My tolerance for catastrophizing goes down the later it gets at nights, especially with misinformation.

This is only during the summer months that these are bans. All the towns that have done the similar bans have not had negative consequences whatsoever. So let's call the question, move on with our nights.

Thank you.

[Speaker 18] (3:44:46 - 3:45:50)
We have a call to question. We have a second on calling the question. So the, when you call a question, we have the second.

It requires a two-thirds vote. So all in favor of calling the question, raise your hand. All opposed?

It passes. Let's move to the vote. This is a simple majority vote.

A yes vote would delete or remove Article 29 in the Town of Swampscot General Bylaws and allow use of gas-powered leaf blowers during the time that they are currently prohibited, which is from Memorial Day to Labor Day. A no vote would retain the bylaw as is, which prohibits the use of gas-powered leaf blowers from Memorial Day to Labor Day. All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hands.

All those opposed? The motion does not pass.

[Speaker 1] (3:46:04 - 3:46:27)
Thank you, Mr. Dorsey. I do appreciate that. This is not an easy crowd to work with.

Given the hour and given that we have several articles still to get through, I would entertain a motion to adjourn until tomorrow evening at 7 o'clock in this hall. Do I have such a motion? Do I have a second?

All those in favor? All those opposed? I'll see you tomorrow.