[Speaker 28] (0:29 - 0:59)
.

[Speaker 1] (1:20 - 2:19)
Okay, welcome to the November 20th select board meeting tonight, we have a lot on our agenda and we are going to get through the majority of it. I am removing line number 8, discussion of Clark School Memorandum, so if anybody is here for line number 8, we are taking that off the agenda for tonight, and we are being recorded. We have a special guest with us tonight, Mr. Connor Maloney, Mr. Maloney, would you like to tell us something about yourself? I'm in third grade and I like pineapple. Okay, Mr. Maloney is our special guest to lead us in the pledge, and what we try to do is we try to have some of our youth come in and lead us to the pledge, so if anybody has any youth at home or next door and wants to come over, please send them down. Thank you.

Mr. Maloney?

[Speaker 14] (2:21 - 2:35)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 13] (2:36 - 2:38)
Thank you, Mr. Maloney.

[Speaker 1] (2:58 - 3:40)
Okay, so what we're going to do tonight is we're going to start with public comment, but we're only going to do public comment that is not part of our discussion around Pine Street. We're going to do public comment with Pine Street during that article, just so we can consolidate it and make it a little bit more concise, okay? So if anybody here is for public comment that has nothing to do with Pine Street or the VFW, please come on up to the mic.

You'll have three minutes to chat. Please state your name and your address.

[Speaker 19] (3:52 - 6:22)
Good evening, my name is Jackson Schultz. I live at 23 Hamden Street, and I am the chair of the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee, and tonight the liaison for the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee, Ms. Leonard, will be putting forward three new candidates for the committee. I greatly appreciate the vote the select board took at your last meeting to table these appointments until such time as our liaison and the Harbor Advisory Chair and myself could meet to discuss the appointments.

We did meet, and at that meeting, which lasted about eight minutes, I said that I wanted the names of Tom Peleria and Al Williams, a commercial fisherman, to be two of the three candidates presented to the select board. Ms. Leonard rejected my suggestions and instead will be putting forward her candidates regardless of my objections. Ms. Leonard said that she wanted a commercial fisherman on the HWAC board, which has been past practice. Mike Imboli was one of Ms. Leonard's picks, was a member of her many years, as was Bob Tobias, who recently moved out of Swampscot. Now Ms. Leonard wants to add not one but two commercial fishermen to the committee. That seems a little lopsided to have two commercial fishermen on a committee that represents the interests of only six or eight commercial fishermen, as well as a diverse population of 15,000 residents.

Ms. Leonard and Ms. Fletcher have often said that there are too many Yacht Club members on the Harbor Advisory Board, yet John Angles, one of Ms. Leonard's picks, is a member of the SYC. I recruited Al Williams to submit an application to be on the HWAC, not only because he's a commercial fisherman, but because the town pier is named after his relative who died during World War II. How fitting that would be to have him on the committee.

Tom Pallera and I met at the end of last summer, and he has shown more enthusiasm to be a member of the Harbor Advisory than any other applicant. Tom has sent multiple emails and had meetings with town officials, and is clearly qualified to be appointed to this position. As it stands now, Ms. Leonard intends to put three names forward for consideration by the Select Board, despite my objections. I am requesting that the Select Board grant the appointment of Ms. Leonard's choice of Amy Langer, as well as Harbor Advisory Chair's choice, myself, Tom Pallera, and Al Williams, to the open seats on the committee. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Schultz.

[Speaker 1] (6:23 - 6:43)
Do we have anyone else for? There's somebody online, and he'll hand up. Okay, we'll get them in a sec.

We'll get the person online. M.K. M.K., if you could state your name and your address.

[Speaker 21] (6:45 - 6:48)
Hi, Mary Ellen. Mike Kellenberg. Pine Hill Road.

[Speaker 1] (6:48 - 6:49)
What was that?

[Speaker 9] (6:49 - 6:52)
Mike Kellenberg. Mike Kellenberg.

[Speaker 21] (6:52 - 6:52)
Pine Hill Road.

[Speaker 1] (6:55 - 6:56)
Thank you, Mike.

[Speaker 21] (6:57 - 8:39)
Hey, how are you guys? I want to thank you all for your time, and I'll be brief. I just wanted to bring it to the Board's attention that, you know, I'm a youth basketball coach for Girls Basketball, I've been for the last few years until we began this year, and I just find it really frustrating that we have 8 o'clock practice times for the youth basketball when we have a brand new gym that's not being used because I'm told it takes 6 to 9 months to learn how to use the electronics. I don't really understand how having basketball practices or other sporting practices in the gym would take more than turning the lights on or off. So, I mean, if we really develop a school that's that difficult to learn, I think we probably made some bad decisions along the way, but everything I've heard is great.

But I just think it's frustrating that, you know, we have a new gym with the taxpayers and lots of youth kids are playing basketball in the wee hours of the night, and, you know, trying to coach middle school girls at 8 o'clock on a Friday night is, uh... So I just think we really need to re-look at that, the new gym that the Tower built, and let more people see it and use it, and, you know, let youth basketball and other sports get used to things. But I hope you have a great evening, and I thank you all.

We have unused gyms in our town, and we're making people stay all day. Alright?

[Speaker 1] (8:39 - 8:43)
Thanks. Thank you, Mike. Okay.

[Speaker 14] (8:52 - 12:12)
Katie Arrington, Forty Roy Street. Prior to becoming Select Board Chair on May 29th, Mary Ellen, you regularly expressed concern about the lack of transparency by the Select Board and publicly criticized your colleagues. Yet, as Chair, you have been even less transparent.

Alright. I respectfully ask that you stop this immediately. Since June 1st, the Select Board has held virtually no public discussions about the Hawthorne site, virtually no public discussions about the Hadley Hotel until your vote last week, virtually no public discussion about the Pine Street Veterans' Affordable Housing and VFW until tonight.

Yet, since June 1st, the Select Board has met in non-public Executive Sessions 18 times. In 14 of the 18 non-public Executive Sessions, the Executive Session agenda posted by the Chair references a discussion of multiple parcels of land, not once identifying what specific parcels of land were to be discussed behind closed doors. Moreover, since June 1st, the Select Board has not released minutes for any of the non-public Executive Sessions.

Under the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, for the Select Board to discuss property in a non-public Executive Session, the Chair must first determine that discussion in open session may have a detrimental effect on the negotiating position of the Town. It is not credible to believe that the Chair in good faith could make this determination in all 14 non-public Executive Sessions relating to every property the Select Board discussed since June 1st. Tonight, the Select Board will be discussing and possibly voting on a binding agreement to lease the Pine Street property and land on which the VFW currently sits for the construction of at least 42 affordable housing units with a preference for veterans.

On October 9th, Mary Ellen Fletcher met with representatives of the VFW and informed them that the Select Board had decided that the VFW would remain where it is today and that the affordable housing units would be built solely on the Pine Street property purchased by the Town in 2023. This was done in non-public Executive Session. Tonight, however, it appears this is no longer the case and the Chair intends for the Select Board to vote on a plan that removes the VFW and builds the affordable housing where the VFW currently resides.

You decided to change this important project without any public input, without discussion with those most impacted, there is no excuse for this violation of trust. Last week, I filed with the Town Clerk and Chair Fletcher an open meeting law violation complaint against the Select Board and its Chair, demanding that this secrecy stop and the Chair and the Board be held accountable. Mary Ellen, I ask you to practice what you preach and choose transparency and stop the secrecy.

I ask that you postpone action on the Pine Street parcel. If you won't stop, then I hope your Select Board colleagues will use their voices and their votes to make you stop. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (12:12 - 12:21)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else?

[Speaker 25] (12:28 - 13:47)
Frank Smith, Archer Street. Good evening. I wanted to address the Select Board tonight to voice my concerns stemming from the recent conversations around town concerning speculation of what may or may not have occurred in one or more closed-door meetings, resulting in the potential reversal of a decision to preserve the VFW post in its present capacity, a promise that was made to the veterans and documented in past meeting minutes.

I am quite concerned about the seemingly excessive amount of closed-door executive sessions that have occurred this year, and moreover, that these style of meetings deny the very people for whom the Board is tasked to represent the transparency of process that is intended to serve as the primary function of the Board and its elected officials in all matters impacting the citizens of Swampscott. To that point, if it is determined at any point in time that this Select Board has knowingly violated the terms of the Open Meeting Law, I am calling for the immediate resignation of Select Board member Mary Ellen Fletcher from their present chairperson position, of which would be reassigned following a public vote among the remaining Select Board members. That is all.

[Speaker 1] (13:48 - 14:21)
Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay. Do we have any more individuals who would like to get up?

Oh, Mary DiCello? I just want to make sure. This is not about Pine Street.

If anybody has public comment for Pine Street, we're going to have a Pine Street comment, too, Mary.

[Speaker 16] (14:29 - 17:45)
I'm Mary DiCello from Precinct 4, town meeting member also. I am a member of their disclosure, full disclosure of a member of the VFW Auxiliary 1240, just so people know where we're coming from. I have comments about Pine Street, but I have more of a comment about to the Select Board, I think, and to people who are present here tonight.

I've been a member of town meetings since 1999, when I first moved here in 1995. So I've tried my best during that period of time to keep abreast of town affairs. Sometimes I've been better at it, sometimes I haven't.

As others have done long before I moved here and will hopefully continue to do going forward, I have cast my vote in town elections, a town meeting, and as a member of elected and appointed town committees about issues that directly affected the town as a whole, individual groups, and various neighborhoods. Like the Select Board members, those of you sitting here tonight, and others are here tonight, we're volunteers. We're all volunteers.

And this government that we have in town functions on volunteers. And the very essence of what we do, and how we do the work, and how we go forward, is going to be how do we work together. So I'm kind of going off script a little bit here tonight, but I really, you know, I'm kind of a pollyannaish sometimes in this.

Sometimes I can be on one issue, sometimes I can be on another. But I try to use my head and my heart to make decisions. And I've made some really hard ones, and I've made some easy ones at town meetings.

I was a school committee member. The hardest job I had to do was vote to close Michon School. And at that point, when that closed, I said to that part of town that I would always have this side of town in my thoughts.

I also worked for the high school to get the high school here. This side of town took a hit, and a hit, and a hit. And they continue to get hit by overdevelopment, by people not paying attention.

And I stand here tonight, I don't know what the outcome of this is going to be or what the answer is to this. But it is, there's got to be some coming of minds here about how do you get different groups, disparate groups, focused to try to get veterans' needs met, the neighborhood needs met. The idea that when I drive by on Essex Street, and I now see this huge structure on Essex Street.

[Speaker 1] (17:45 - 17:48)
Mary, it's only three minutes. Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 16] (17:48 - 18:04)
But think about it, folks. We have not had a planner for two years. We've not done planning.

And what worries me about all these decisions is that we need to be thinking our way through this, not emoting our way through.

[Speaker 1] (18:04 - 18:27)
Thank you, Mary. Okay. Do we have anyone else who would like to speak?

I see somebody standing up and leaving. Okay. So what we're going to do now is we're going to go to the discussion.

[Speaker 8] (18:29 - 18:43)
Madam Chair, would we be able to take the land development, land disposition agreement for 10 New Ocean and 12 to 24 Pine Street out of order and move agenda item number nine up to the front? We do have about three dozen veterans here.

[Speaker 1] (18:43 - 18:45)
We are doing that right now. Okay. Excellent.

[Speaker 18] (18:46 - 18:46)
Perfect.

[Speaker 1] (18:46 - 19:02)
So we are going to take number nine and we're going to move that up to the beginning. So what we're going to do first is we're going to walk through the project with Margie Golaska, our community development director.

[Speaker 7] (19:06 - 27:59)
It's my pleasure to provide to you a timeline of perhaps how we arrived at today's date and maybe just go back in time and to really talk about the project trajectory and how the project has started. As you know, affordable housing and especially senior and veteran housing is something that a lot of communities lack, including Swampscotch. So in the spring of 2023, town meeting took a vote to acquire land at 1224 Pine Street.

There were two articles during that town meeting. It was article 10 and article 11. And both of them looked at acquiring land and also disposing of land to create affordable veteran housing.

The article passed, had a favorable vote from the town meeting. And after that point, town issued an RFP to create a veterans affordable housing and a veterans center that will be located at 10 New Ocean Street and 12 to 24 Pine Street. So basically combining the two processes together.

On the map, you see what's in front of you. You see the structure at 1224 Pine Street that has since been demolished. And you see the veterans post on the structure.

So both of those parcels were part of the articles that created, that town meeting voted to dispose in order to create affordable housing. In the fall of 2023, town received, or select what I should say prior to that, held meetings and discussed the need to issue an RFP. So in the fall of, or actually in the earlier fall I should say, or maybe like in July I want to say, the town issued an RFP that was seeking proposals from developers to create affordable veterans, affordable housing, and to create a new, or to incorporate a VFW post as part of that new development.

We received one proposal in September in the fall of 2023. The proposal was from B'nai B'rith. A lot of us might be familiar with them as they have developed the Michon Project.

They have a long history of being an amazing advocate for creating affordable housing. And the select one moved forward and awarded the bid to B'nai B'rith to develop affordable veterans housing at 10 New Ocean Street, 1224 Pine Street. The proposal, or the bid that was received from B'nai B'rith included a component of the development that would incorporate the VFW as part of that project.

The proposal included about 1,500 square feet for a veteran space. It also included some flex space as well as two offices that would be located on the first floor of this new structure that was going to be developed on Pine Street. In the spring of 2024, town held a meeting at the Senior Center with the VFW leadership as well as residents of Pine Street and Swampscott residents to hear the presentation about demolition plans that the town has had for the structure adjacent to the VFW and also to talk about the proposal as well as to share the bid or the proposal for the redevelopment of the site.

Talk about the concept and talk about the potential of the project timeline for this redevelopment. Since that time in the early summer of this year, we have had an opportunity to meet with the VFW leadership to really further discuss the plans and talk about their expectation and the needs for the site. It was determined that the space or the square footage that was proposed as part of the B'nai B'rith development was not sufficient.

It was too small. So we have gone back and forth, have had several discussions to try to find out what is the ideal space that would be needed as a replacement to the existing space that the VFW as well as other branches of veterans have at the VFW post right now. Our developer was great as the VFW leadership asked to see if we can look at options in regards to being able to relocate the building, perhaps maybe build one building on the smaller parcel.

How can we co-exist together? We looked at a variety of different options. We also toured some potential parcels for relocation of the VFW to different town-owned spaces and then also spaces that were not owned by the town.

Ultimately, the VFW presented a proposal to us from an architect or a member that has proposed that we could still accommodate the 42 units of housing adjacent to the parcel. We shared that proposal with the development team and they came back to us and said yes, we could accommodate 42 units of housing but unfortunately we are not able to have structured parking underneath the building and parking would be an issue in the neighborhood. A lot of us, I'm not sure if there are any neighbors of the project, when the planning board was going through the previous proposal on the project, there was a plan for 22 units of housing and there were a lot of concerns about parking, neighborhood characters, and other issues.

We still have gone back and forth, looked at the various options. Basically, there were three options that were available to us. Number one is to have the VFW be part of the project but unfortunately that was deemed not enough space in there.

The second option would be to keep the building in place and build around it but unfortunately that was an option that was not feasible by the developer because of construction costs and other issues. Obviously, the third option would be to relocate VFW to another preferably town-owned parcel where we could make improvements or try to build out a space that would meet the current needs of the VFW and the various branches of government that are used in this space right now. So this is sort of how we arrived where we are today.

I know that Selectwood has had a couple of meetings in the past and what's in front of you today is a land development agreement that talks about building up to 42 units of affordable veteran's rental housing but that would call for relocation of the VFW to another location. I'm happy to just maybe share with you, yeah, maybe this is what's on the map right now is a concept drawing. And again, I just want to preference that this is a concept.

This kind of shows the context of the structure, what it potentially could look like. So the development would be a three-story structure with some parking adjacent to it. One thing that I wanted to say is that the land development agreement also talks about the fact that the developer will have to go through permanent.

We would have to go, they would have to go through site plan review, they would be working with the town, with the planning board, with the zoning board of appeals in regards to the actual location of the building, how that's going to be structured, how it's going to, what the materials will be used for the building envelope, for landscaping and other features of the new proposal of the building.

[Speaker 8] (28:01 - 28:20)
I have a question. Ms. Velasca, could we go back to the previous slide? So it says 2024 fall.

Select Board holds meetings to discuss the impacts of the project to the neighborhood and Director Butters. Three options were discussed. Do you have the dates of those meetings that were held?

[Speaker 7] (28:21 - 28:41)
We've had meetings with the leadership of the VFW. So I should probably rephrase that, not the Select Board. There were two Select Board members that have had meetings with the VFW leadership.

And I can go back. I don't have the dates with me right now, but I'm happy to.

[Speaker 8] (28:42 - 28:45)
Were those meetings in October? October 9th?

[Speaker 7] (28:48 - 28:51)
I'm sorry, I don't have the date. I can go back and try to get the dates.

[Speaker 8] (28:51 - 28:53)
Ms. Fletcher, when did those meetings happen?

[Speaker 1] (28:55 - 28:56)
I think you were at the meeting?

[Speaker 8] (28:56 - 28:58)
Well, I was certainly at one.

[Speaker 1] (28:58 - 28:59)
What date were you at the meeting?

[Speaker 8] (29:00 - 29:15)
I was certainly at one of the meetings, but these meetings weren't public meetings. So I just want to make sure that we're not giving the impression that these were public discussions. Is that what that says there?

These were closed door discussions. It says the Select Board holds meetings.

[Speaker 7] (29:15 - 29:21)
These were project meetings. So these were project meetings with the leadership of the VFW.

[Speaker 8] (29:22 - 29:34)
Okay, thank you. And another question, I'm just following up from Ms. Arrington's public comment, that there was an open meeting law complaint filed against the town, or against you, and that wasn't shared with our board?

[Speaker 1] (29:35 - 29:46)
Against the Select Board. Yes, it was filed on, I don't know, Friday or Monday. I didn't see it until Monday.

So that's coming out to everybody. I just sent it to KP Law.

[Speaker 2] (29:46 - 30:09)
Okay, thank you. Sorry, I have one question. Marcy, did you say that B'nai B'rith determined that building the 42 units on the one site was, I don't want to mischaracterize what you said.

[Speaker 7] (30:09 - 30:10)
Was feasible.

[Speaker 2] (30:10 - 30:12)
They said it was feasible?

[Speaker 7] (30:12 - 30:52)
Yes, so they could fit 42 units of housing. The density, obviously, would be greater. The height would be greater.

So instead of having a spread out three-story building, now you're looking at a five, potentially six-story building structure when you look at maybe perhaps the flooding issue flood zones in terms of trying to raise the building to the flood elevation. They need to have utilities on the roof side. So they said that yes, we could build a building on the single spot at 1224 Pine Street, but unfortunately they will not be able to meet the parking requirements.

And obviously the density and the structure would be much greater.

[Speaker 2] (30:53 - 32:08)
Okay, that's not what I understood through this process. So I'm glad you clarified that because I thought you said they said it could be built and then I thought you said later that they said it couldn't be built. So it could be built and my understanding through all of this is that the only distinction was one story between three stories and four stories.

So I've never heard five or six stories before. And I know we had discussions about parking, but those discussions were more in line of how would we make it work, how many spots really would be needed, what would be needed on the street versus off-street, that type of thing. So I just want to make sure that we're kind of characterizing this.

If something's changed, I'm open to understanding that, but this is the first time I ever heard that potentially it couldn't be built, which I'm glad we clarified that wasn't really what was intended, and that exactly what the differential would be, doing it on one site versus two sites. So just wanted to make sure I understood that.

[Speaker 7] (32:08 - 32:33)
There were a couple of issues, right? In terms of building the structure of the building envelope, yes, it would be feasible, but it would not, again, parking would be something that would not be able to be achieved on the site, and then obviously the massing of the building was something that potentially could be a detriment to the neighborhood or a concern of the neighborhood.

[Speaker 1] (32:34 - 32:52)
I have a question. The other issue is they said that they could build a four-story building, but it wasn't disclosed that it would also have to be elevated because we're in a flood zone, and all mechanics would have to go on top of that. That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (32:53 - 32:59)
Which would also be the case if it's on two sites. It's still a flood zone, right?

[Speaker 1] (32:59 - 33:00)
That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (33:00 - 33:01)
And you still have to have the mechanic on the roof.

[Speaker 1] (33:01 - 33:02)
That's correct.

[Speaker 2] (33:02 - 33:07)
Okay, so I just want to make sure we're all being clear here. So we're really talking about one-story difference.

[Speaker 1] (33:07 - 33:22)
On two sites, the massing would be far less than the massing on one site. So that's another very, very important issue, that the size of the building would be smaller.

[Speaker 7] (33:23 - 33:38)
And I would also say that, you know, do we go back to town meeting, because the town meeting vote was to utilize 10 Norsham Street and 12 24 Pine Street. That was the vote of town meeting. David?

[Speaker 8] (33:39 - 34:10)
Yeah, Ms. Golaska. Just this. I know there had been a market rate project that had been previously approved by the planning board, and I believe the size of that structure that was previously approved, which did have different, you know, a variety of unit sizes, was approximately 34,000, 35,000 feet.

The proposed development by B'nai B'rith was approximately the same size, correct? Just a different unit mix. The units were going to be a little smaller, maybe 600 to 650 square feet.

Is that accurate?

[Speaker 7] (34:11 - 34:20)
I don't have the height in front of me. I'm not sure if, Angela, if you recall, in regards to the previous development.

[Speaker 5] (34:20 - 34:22)
It was 37 feet to the roof.

[Speaker 8] (34:22 - 34:37)
No, no, no. I'm talking about the square footage of the actual building. So while there were fewer units, the size of the actual structure that was going to be constructed solely on 12 to 24 Pine Street, I believe, was of a similar size.

[Speaker 5] (34:38 - 34:41)
Well, we don't know what the— I'm sorry if I don't want to speak up.

[Speaker 1] (34:41 - 34:41)
Go right ahead.

[Speaker 5] (34:43 - 34:55)
We don't know what the— any new proposal would be. They're saying 42 units on the same site, but I have no idea what the size of the building is.

[Speaker 8] (34:56 - 34:59)
I believe they've provided— A square footage?

[Speaker 28] (35:00 - 35:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (35:00 - 35:24)
Okay. Well, I clearly haven't been privy to any of that, so I don't know. The gross floor area of what was approved by the zoning board is 35,589 square feet, 21 units.

It was three stories, but the bottom level was parking. So it was two stories of housing.

[Speaker 1] (35:25 - 35:29)
And underground parking? I mean, under the building parking.

[Speaker 5] (35:29 - 35:42)
Under the building parking, which automatically elevated the building, all of the facilities being on top, and that required multiple dimensional special permits from the zoning board of appeals as well as a variance.

[Speaker 1] (35:43 - 35:44)
Okay, Katie?

[Speaker 6] (35:44 - 36:22)
Yeah, I just want to be clear that what Mr. Bellido is talking about is the development that was approved prior— August 2022. —in August of 2022, and that's not what Benet proposed. Benet did not propose parking on the ground floor and the building being built on top of that.

We inquired as to why, when the veterans asked to stay in place, because we thought that would solve the parking problem. It is because for that developer, it is cost prohibitive for them to do that. They said it would not work within their funding structure to build base-level parking and then to build on top.

We did inquire about that.

[Speaker 1] (36:27 - 37:19)
I do have—I have one question, because I have had a few people make comments that this is not veterans housing and that this is senior housing. And my understanding since day one is that this is veterans housing. This is a project that Mr. Grishman was very passionate about. And to be honest, at the beginning, I was very apprehensive, but I changed my mind after listening to what a number of select board members say. But now I'm hearing that it is not veterans housing. So is this veterans housing?

It is veterans housing. 500% veterans housing? Excuse me.

We're going to let the public speak right after we're done. Okay? Go ahead.

[Speaker 7] (37:19 - 37:37)
This is the neighborhood that has committed to build affordable housing for 55-plus with a local preference of veterans with a second preference of swamp scotch veterans to be included.

[Speaker 1] (37:38 - 38:08)
We have Kim Martin Epstein here tonight from the Affordable Housing Trust. And Kim, can you please just reiterate what Margie's telling? Because it was very concerning to me to hear that people from the veterans organization, actually the commander, told me that it was not going to be veterans, that there's a very serious concern here, which I would be concerned with too because it's the only reason I got on board with this.

[Speaker 9] (38:09 - 38:11)
Am I on? You're on.

[Speaker 4] (38:11 - 41:38)
I have no reason to believe that this isn't veterans housing. I was in the very, very earliest of conversations before this in my own capacity as a town of swamp scotch person who happens to do affordable housing for a living. I was in very early design discussions.

I happened to know the people at B'nai B'rith really well, asked them feasibility questions. This has always been housing that was intended to have a veterans preference. The thing that you probably can get muddled, I think, when you talk about housing that's for preferential housing is that when a developer sets out to maximize the number of units to provide the most amount of housing that's feasible on a site, they need to fill up those units.

So they have to look at the population of people who need affordable housing, which I think we can all agree is great. And then when you decide to do supportive services and offer them to certain groups like veterans or people over the age of 60 or whatever it is you decide you're going to provide services for, you also have to make sure that you can fill the units with people who fit the affordability profile and fit the need for the services. We came to understand after conversations that involved veterans and town people and planning and economic development and everybody who wanted a way in that we would propose and be proponents of a project that would have a veterans preference, that would be designed to provide veterans supportive services.

And because the units are going to be designed as small units, they will necessarily obviously not be family units. The idea was that there would also be a preference for people who are over, I guess, 55, but these are going to be small units that naturally in the marketing process they're going to be more available to people who are not looking for multi-bedroom apartments and they're going to have supportive services on site which are going to be directly provided to people for whom these units are marketed. There's never been any discussion that it was going to be anything other than this.

You cannot deny somebody a unit if they fit the affordability, if you have no other veterans who apply. So the way that the marketing will work will be that the veterans applications will come in and the marketing and lottery folks will look at it and pull out all the people who can qualify under the affordability restrictions who are veterans and they'll get preference. And if there are units after that, then people who are interested in those units who fit the affordability units will never change.

But the next pass will be people who are not veterans if there aren't enough veterans to fill the units that are marketed. But again, never was this not a veterans preference with on-site veteran supportive services provided through the development of this and funded by the developer who will obtain a lot of state support to provide the housing and the services.

[Speaker 1] (41:43 - 42:01)
Does anybody have any questions as to... We also have our lawyer on the phone. Does anybody have any questions as to the ground lease red lines that we had received on Monday or on the LDA?

Do we have any questions on that that should be addressed?

[Speaker 10] (42:22 - 42:52)
Good evening, folks. Kurt James, Assistant at the Attorney, working with the Select Board to negotiate the terms of this land disposition agreement and ground lease. Just to that point about veterans' preferences, I feel that it's pretty critical for everybody who's listening to understand exactly what the language is.

And I thought I would just read what's in the LDA. I think that will help supplement what Kim just mentioned.

[Speaker 1] (42:52 - 42:53)
Thank you.

[Speaker 10] (42:54 - 44:15)
So what it says now is that it's going to be available... It's 42 one-bedroom units of multi-family senior rental housing, the residence of each unit being at least 55 or older as follows. If available based on funding resources, up to 23 units will be reserved for extremely low-income households who have an annual income at or below 30% of area median income, and the remaining units will be reserved for low-income households who have an annual income of at least 60% of area median income.

There should be a preference for a town of Swanscot residence to the extent permitted by applicable law. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the preference category should be prioritized in the following manner. First, veterans, second, town of Swanscot residence.

So as Kim indicated, first and foremost, it's going to be an affordable housing project. Secondly, it's going to be limited to folks who are 55 or older, and these are all one-bedroom units, as you indicated, so they're going to be appropriately sized for that population. And to the extent that there are eligible veterans who qualify and meet both those requirements, they will have first priority for any available units.

[Speaker 1] (44:21 - 44:26)
Okay. We don't have any questions on...

[Speaker 2] (44:27 - 46:21)
Well, I'll just say that I frankly haven't even reviewed these last comments because I feel as though somewhat apropos some of the comments that are made here tonight that we've been trying to negotiate this LDA going back and forth on these different options that Margie laid out haven't had the benefit of the public's input to understand the ramifications of the different options. We've kind of been... We've had meetings...

Some of us have had meetings with the vets to understand where they sit and stand on this. As I understand it, as Margie laid it out, the vets came up with the creative idea that all the same units could exist on one site, and after that extensive process, we had a discussion in executive session and determined that wasn't the best option. So to me, I can't even really look at this LDA in detail without having heard from people about the ramifications of one site versus using one parcel versus two parcels, moving the VFW post or having it next door, adding one floor versus...

So it just feels like we kind of have things... We're trying to rush through to sign this document without...

[Speaker 1] (46:21 - 47:14)
Actually, all I'm asking is if you've... I'm not trying to rush through signing the document. I'm asking, while we have our lawyer here, so that I don't have to go back into executive session, is there anything that you would like to talk about in this document right now, any questions that you have right now?

Because he's right here. We're right here in public. So do you have any questions on here?

And let's not forget, in executive session, we did have to discuss things as far as could it fit on one piece of land, and at that time, we didn't have any open meetings at that time either because we had to make decisions in executive session because of a possibility that it could have a conflict or hurt our final decisions.

[Speaker 2] (47:17 - 48:02)
I think, in hindsight, there's some ambiguity from my perspective about whether or not we could have, should have had discussions about these different options in a public session. That's water under the bridge or a violation, depending on how you want to look at it. I'm not trying to...

I appreciate that I'm not trying to play to the crowd. I'm just saying, in hindsight, I think maybe we did the best we could, but all I'm saying right now is that it's hard to really examine the nitty-gritty of this without getting the larger context from people about their perspective on the different options.

[Speaker 9] (48:02 - 48:44)
So I have a suggestion. I'm really kind of tired of hearing us talk, and on that topic that we just raised, I want to stop. I want to go through the first piece about it being veterans housing or affordable housing or senior housing, and I want to hear from people that are here, if they have questions on just that first piece, before we get into the rest of it.

Because that's what we're here for. I've heard us talk about this for six months. I want to hear from the many people that are clearly here for this, but I want to hear, first of all, on that first topic.

Is there still confusion out there on whether or not it's veterans or low-income or affordable housing or senior preference?

[Speaker 1] (48:44 - 48:46)
Hold on a second.

[Speaker 9] (48:46 - 48:58)
So I would propose that we open it up to people that have questions for just that one piece right now and try to get that piece worked out, and then we can move on to the next piece of this whole thing.

[Speaker 1] (48:58 - 49:03)
So if you have a question about that topic, please come up to the mic.

[Speaker 9] (49:03 - 49:14)
If there's anything lingering out there where people think it's not for veterans, first preference, I want to hear those thoughts, so that we have the lawyer here, we have us here, if we can at least address those concerns.

[Speaker 2] (49:15 - 49:15)
Good idea.

[Speaker 9] (49:17 - 49:18)
Charlie, Patcio?

[Speaker 22] (49:18 - 49:53)
My name is Charlie Patcio. It's very interesting. We have a veteran.

He's returned from Afghanistan, a veteran of a foreign war, but he's not 55 years old, but he needs housing assistance. This housing would not allow him a roof over his head. So it's veterans' housing, but the stipulations that you've placed now restrict the very people that we care about the most, actual veterans returning from war that need our help.

That's my question.

[Speaker 9] (49:53 - 50:04)
Okay, that's a good question. I don't know if Kurt can speak to that. Kim, go ahead.

[Speaker 4] (50:07 - 51:42)
This housing, like all the other housing that we're building, is basically achieving a teeny little drop of success in an enormous problem that is a yawning, unending need. And I don't think by creating housing for veterans that involves single bedroom and it's got a lot of density, so we can get a lot of units, suggests that other housing for people who are not 55 or who are veterans who are younger than 55 is not needed. But the project that we approved on this site, and one of the reasons I think we talked about this early on on this site, was because we could achieve density and create a number of units.

These projects don't work if you don't build enough units. We've talked about this in other contexts over and over and over again. Respectfully to everyone who wants three bedroom units or big units for other people to live in, they're not going to fit on this site ever, because the numbers will never work.

So you always are making a decision, do I do something or do I do nothing? Because something can be done, and nothing will just leave us talking about this over and over and over again. So Town Meeting and the Affordable Housing Trust and everyone else after has decided that this is the project we're going to work on now.

Does it mean we won't do more? Of course not.

[Speaker 9] (51:43 - 51:59)
But to answer the question, it would not. So to Charlie's question, if it's a veteran who's under 55, they would not get first preference here. Is that fair?

They wouldn't even be allowed to live there, right? So just to answer Charlie's question. I'm sorry.

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (52:00 - 52:03)
I'm Mary Ellen. I don't know if you see Kurt. Excuse me.

[Speaker 1] (52:04 - 52:08)
One second, Mr. Kurt? Kurt? Yeah, sorry.

[Speaker 10] (52:08 - 52:53)
I just wanted to kind of amplify what Kim is saying. So in order to allow for two- or three-bedroom apartments for family-sized units, it would reduce the number of units and not make it feasible. If this were just for veterans with no age limitation, again, it would not be financeable.

It would not be approved by the state with their public funding sources. And so, again, it just would not be a financially feasible project. So I'm hoping that folks will focus on the actual benefits for this select group with the understanding, as Kim says, that there will be another project down the road that will serve the needs of other veterans.

All right.

[Speaker 1] (52:53 - 52:54)
Thanks, Kurt. Thank you, Kurt.

[Speaker 10] (52:55 - 52:56)
What's that?

[Speaker 1] (52:57 - 52:59)
Yes. Just your name and your address.

[Speaker 27] (52:59 - 53:06)
David Emerton, 10 New Ocean Street. I'm the quartermaster of the VFW Post 1240.

[Speaker 1] (53:06 - 53:07)
We need your address.

[Speaker 27] (53:07 - 53:10)
My address, 108 Bellsmere Street, Lynn.

[Speaker 1] (53:11 - 53:14)
Lynn. What did you say? What was that?

Bells?

[Speaker 27] (53:14 - 53:15)
Pardon?

[Speaker 1] (53:16 - 53:16)
Bells Street?

[Speaker 27] (53:16 - 53:20)
Bellsmere, F-E-L-L-S-M-E-R-E.

[Speaker 1] (53:21 - 53:22)
Thank you.

[Speaker 27] (53:23 - 53:53)
Up in the great fair state. Well, anyways, I don't mention names, but I met with a select board member two days ago, and I was assured that all 42 units, 41, 42 units, whatever it is, would be for veterans only, whether they live in Swanscot, Lynn, Salem, Peabody, Framingham, or out in the western part of the state. It would be strictly for veterans.

That's all I'm saying. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (53:55 - 53:56)
And that's what we're saying.

[Speaker 4] (53:58 - 55:32)
Let's clarify that. We haven't said anything different than that. We can reiterate what the preference will be.

The preference will be affordable, so the income restriction is. Excuse me. This is an affordable housing project.

In order to build it, we have to provide income restrictions. That's the project. That's always been the project.

So the applications will first screen for affordability. If somebody has limited income, they will fit into the income tiers that it's designed for. Veterans, first preference.

Veterans who are of lower income will have first preference. If all 42 units can be filled with veterans who are of lower income, then we're done. That's it.

If there are not enough applications for veterans who qualify on the income level, then the next tier of preference will be achieved, which is Town of Swanscotch. And after that. But veterans from another town will still, I mean, the first preference level, as we said, is veterans.

I don't think we said anything different than that. I know it's hard to kind of figure out how this works in real life, but when the management company starts to receive the applications, they have to, you know, start with the tier, each tier. And the first tier is the affordability, and then the next tier is affordability and veterans.

And the next tier is affordability, veterans, Swanscotch, or, you know, however the applications come in.

[Speaker 2] (55:34 - 55:55)
Would it be fair to say, like, we can all collectively, you know, wherever this gets built, however it gets built, if we all collectively work on making sure that every vet that qualifies on the income scale applies, then this will be a veterans project. I mean, we control that effectively.

[Speaker 1] (55:55 - 55:59)
And we're talking about any veteran in the state, right?

[Speaker 4] (55:59 - 56:33)
I mean, any veteran in the state. So, right, I think, you know, we're getting to the point where it's the developer and their expertise in affirmative fair housing marketing that would really need to take over. I'm not speaking for the developer.

I'm trying to be educational about how this would work. And I will assure everybody, at least to the extent I've been involved, that it has never not been a veterans preference project. End of discussion.

I cannot go further, just because it's not my area of expertise, exactly how these lotteries will play out.

[Speaker 6] (56:34 - 57:23)
Yeah, and I think we discussed that very early on, and we talked about creating a sort of task force that would identify veterans as local veterans that we would be able to help through the application process so that when this gets marketed, we would be able to already have designated a large group, if not 42 folks or however many units get built, to say, you know, these folks we already know, based on the marketing that's been put out, we already know that they meet the criteria one, they meet the criteria two. And so, you know, we are trying to reach out to, I know we've reached out to the veterans, we've talked to Mike Sweeney, we've talked to folks to try to be able to inform as many veterans as we can so that we can understand how many units could be filled in this region.

[Speaker 20] (57:27 - 57:32)
Hi. Susan Bishop, 4 1st Street, Salem, Mass.

[Speaker 1] (57:34 - 57:36)
Did you say 1st Street?

[Speaker 20] (57:36 - 59:18)
4 1st Street, Salem. Very briefly, I'm with the VFW Post 1240. I'm the auxiliary president and a business owner in this town for over 12 years.

Come from a long line of veterans, so this is dear to me. Grandfathers, great-uncles at Purple Hearts, uncle perished in the Thresher submarine. Four of my six brothers served in the military, one in Vietnam and another did four tours in the Middle East.

You sold us a vision of veterans housing in a new VFW. Facts revealed, it is not veterans housing. There is a difference between veteran and affordable housing.

And we would not have an equally great VFW that we have now. You entertain our engineer in the new design, which built your apartments and left the current V alone. On October 9th, one of those 18 executive meetings, you stated that you sided with the veterans and you would go with the new design, leaving our building alone.

October 29th, you had another meeting without the veterans and changed your mind and told us to go to Reach Arts. A VFW post is a safe place where veterans fellowship with other veterans. There is a camaraderie among them and understanding that others in this post may have experienced similar events, missions and combat control, an air of peace and belonging they cannot get elsewhere.

The post is priceless to your Reach Arts building. Respectfully.

[Speaker 1] (59:23 - 59:23)
Sir?

[Speaker 18] (59:30 - 59:35)
Hi, I'm Steve Peterson. I live on Lynn Shore Drive, number 9.

[Speaker 1] (59:35 - 59:37)
Excuse me, Mr. Peterson, what was your address again?

[Speaker 18] (59:38 - 59:39)
Number 9, Lynn Shore Drive.

[Speaker 1] (59:39 - 59:41)
In Swampscott?

[Speaker 18] (59:41 - 1:01:25)
Lynn. Lynn. I'm a friend of the post, an associate member, and I was the one who put together some study sketches for conversation starters.

They're not architecture, they're not design, but I did some studies to depict how you might fit 40, 42, 48 units into a box on that lot. And the intent was to preserve the capital asset that the post has now. They have the parking that they need.

The building serves their needs. They might need an elevator. They might need a new roof.

That's a different set of needs. For the residents, whether it's all veterans or 50% or whatever, the conversation was if you have a bedroom, you have a parking spot. That might be a starting point.

If you can't get there based upon the geometry of the site, then that's a thing. Then you maybe put some people on the street or park on the street and deal with the neighbors or do what you can to keep things in the shadow of the building. The first floor is a little bit irregular.

You could probably put some parking in there. I laid out 40 parking spots, but that was with a vision of how big the lot was. I did not have and do not have dimension drawings of how big that lot is.

But I kind of Googled how big is a parking spot, and then I stacked them up, and I did 20 by 30 one-bedroom units and laid them all out.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:25 - 1:01:33)
Mr. Peterson, I just have to ask you, are you concerned that this is not veterans housing? Because that's the topic that we're talking about right now.

[Speaker 18] (1:01:35 - 1:02:21)
That is to be decided. That's not what I bring to the table. My conversation is you can put 20 by 30 units on my sketch.

Whether my sketch is accurate or not, they might have to go from 600 square feet to 540 or whatever, whatever. Maybe the 40 parking spots, 48 parking spots drop to 38 or whatever. That's what I also did a couple of studies where I depicted one, two, and three-bedroom units in that box.

If you have 4,200-bedroom units, you've got 42 bathrooms and 42 kitchens.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:21 - 1:02:33)
Mr. Peterson, what we're trying to do is we're trying to focus right now if anybody has any questions about whether or not it's veterans housing. We had promised a few people to speak, so if I could ask you to give us...

[Speaker 18] (1:02:33 - 1:02:44)
I'll give it back. The point is you use the requirements of the club and the residents. Maybe it's to benefit keeping them separate so that the needs are met.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:45 - 1:03:01)
Thank you very much. Now, we're just going to stay focused on Danielle's question. Is there anybody here?

Ma'am, didn't you want to speak about if it's veterans housing? You don't have to.

[Speaker 28] (1:03:03 - 1:03:04)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:05 - 1:03:07)
Your name and your address.

[Speaker 26] (1:03:07 - 1:04:00)
My name is Adrienne Javery. I live at 97 Ocean Street in Lynn, Massachusetts, and I work as a bartender and a volunteer at the Post 1240. I'm also on the auxiliary, and I come from a long line of veterans.

My concern is that the veterans should have a home, and if this is the proposed issue that they want to tear it down and give them a home, give it to the veterans. Don't do it for subsidized housing. Don't do it for anybody else because, like anybody else in here, I don't own a home.

I can go to subsidized housing, but these veterans need it. There are people that come into that post. They live in rooming houses.

They have roaches. They have mice. If they can get into that building, let them get in.

But now what you're saying is you're going to put it for other non-veterans before this person?

[Speaker 1] (1:04:01 - 1:04:11)
No, that's not what we're saying. No one said that tonight. And if you know people that are in a rooming house, get the list of the people you know.

They are going to be our priority. That's what you're hearing here tonight.

[Speaker 26] (1:04:12 - 1:04:21)
Well, then that's my thing. It's like get those veterans into that apartment. If you're going to tear it down, unfortunately, get those veterans in there.

[Speaker 1] (1:04:21 - 1:04:47)
We're going to put you on that committee. All right. Is there anyone else that has a question or wants to talk about their issue with veterans housing?

Mr. Driscoll, your name and address, sir.

[Speaker 24] (1:04:48 - 1:05:04)
Tom Driscoll, 28 Crossman Ave. in Swampscott. This is actually me not knowing anything about affordable housing, so I'm going to have to ask you. When you say affordable housing, it's based on the Swampscott market rate, correct?

Or not?

[Speaker 4] (1:05:04 - 1:05:05)
I'm so glad you asked.

[Speaker 24] (1:05:06 - 1:05:08)
That's why I'm here. I always like to ask a good question.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:09 - 1:07:02)
Anytime I have an opportunity to find and make sure everybody's using the same terms, I would love to take it. When we talk about affordable housing, we are talking about housing that is affordable to people at their income level. The concept is that nobody should be paying more than 30% of their income, and, of course, ideally way less.

But when we start out figuring out how we can build housing for the population that needs it, our goal is to provide housing to people so that they don't pay more than 30% of their income, whatever that income is. The way we determine these tiers of income is we have to use area median income information and, therefore, rental. It's like a grid that HUD puts out, basically, but every year HUD provides us information about the area median income and the subsidized rent allowances for those income levels.

Swampscott is in a statistical area that includes Boston and Cambridge, so it's an interesting large area. It includes areas with considerably lower, probably, gross incomes of residents and higher, too. These numbers are knowable.

This is information that HUD publishes every year, but when we end up financing this project, the rents will start out at whatever the rents are from HUD the year that the project gets financed, and it'll be based on that year's statistical information, but it'll be the Boston-Cambridge Metropolitan Statistical Area, whatever it's called. You can look it up. I'm not lying.

It's a big area, but it includes Boston, Cambridge. It includes Marblehead. It includes Swampscott.

It includes Lynn. It includes Salem. I think it includes parts of the South Shore, too.

It's a big area.

[Speaker 9] (1:07:02 - 1:07:10)
Can you give us an idea of what a rough estimate of a one-person household, a two-person household, what the income levels look like?

[Speaker 4] (1:07:10 - 1:08:26)
This is information that has recently. So the 60% income level. So somebody at 60% of the area median income right now is listed.

What does that mean? A one-person household at 60% of the area median income is earning $68,520. A two-person household who's earning 60% of the area median income is at $78,360.

And the 30% income tier, which is what we call extremely low income, this is people who are 30% or lower, so marginally employed, really vulnerable population. A one-person household is earning $34,260 or less to be in the 30% category. And a two-person household is at $39,000.

So that's 60% of whatever right now is considered the area median income for this area. So it's earning $34,000 or less. That's right.

A one-person household at the 30% income level is earning $34,000 or less.

[Speaker 6] (1:08:26 - 1:08:42)
There's someone in the room in the house. To be clear, Kim, we had said before that the way the proposal is written, I'm sorry, 23 units are reserved for 30% income or less, so that 34K or lower.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:42 - 1:08:43)
That's right.

[Speaker 6] (1:08:43 - 1:08:55)
And then the 19-ish remaining units are 60 or lower. So that means that the income can go up, but if we filled all units with 30 or lower, that is not an issue.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:56 - 1:08:59)
Correct. Not 30. No, no, no.

[Speaker 4] (1:08:59 - 1:09:08)
So the restriction will say 60% or lower and 30% or lower. If everyone's lower, it's not a violation of the restriction.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:08 - 1:09:59)
So 30% is still lower. Still lower than 60. One of the problems that we have found, I will tell you, I did a little bit of research on Michon because we didn't get as many Swamp Scout residents into Michon, and what was explained to me at the time was one of the problems is we will have people possibly bringing in a lower income.

However, they may have a very large asset, such as their house. And one of the concerns that we have is if we have enough time to really start to look and see when this project is going to be finished and when we can get ready right now, if we can identify veterans in this area right now and then try to figure out what we can do as far as preparing them with their assets to qualify to get into a facility like this, that's going to be a big benefit for them.

[Speaker 8] (1:10:00 - 1:11:10)
And just to piggyback on that, I've had conversations with our VSO, Mike Sweeney. He's identified that there are approximately 500 veterans within the town. Well, it's approximately 500, and 400 of those 500 veterans, 80%, are 55-plus.

So he's worried. Age, he means age. So, yeah, 80% are 55-plus, and what he's looking to do, and we did authorize the select board, I believe in April or May, did indicate that we wanted to establish a veterans housing committee specifically for this Pine Street project where we do need to work with the veterans and have a select board liaison and really have a project that allows us to go out and market and communicate and ensure that we're knocking on the doors and we're notifying each and every veteran within the town of Swampskate to make them aware of this particular project, get them to apply, so that we have the most success possible.

[Speaker 24] (1:11:10 - 1:11:38)
Right. Can I do a follow-up? Because I've just learned, I mean, I've gotten a little more confused.

So is there any way that, for example, the owners of this building, isn't their ultimate goal still to get the most money that they can? So, for example, wouldn't it tend to be the veterans who can afford the higher rate, whatever preference, or not?

[Speaker 4] (1:11:38 - 1:13:02)
No. So the way this, I mean, they're coming into this project, well, first of all, nobody builds affordable housing to get the most money that they can. No, what I'm saying is, like, No, no, it's really important to understand this.

The operating budget for any rental housing is the same whether you're providing rental apartments that are luxury or whether they're for income-restricted people. So you've got an operating budget you have to meet. These projects have to be built.

They take on debt. Oftentimes, they take on permanent debt, right, loans that have to be paid. So you've got operating costs you have to pay, you have debt service you have to pay, and you have a market-rate building that's taking on the most amount of rents, and then you have an affordable housing project that has considerably less income.

So the first thing that these projects have to do is satisfy their operating budget and pay their debt service. The developers who do these projects earn a developer fee at the beginning for doing the project. That's what keeps nonprofits who build affordable housing going so they can do the next project.

But they're not— There's very, very little cash flow that comes out of these that's available to do anything but pay operating costs, pay back debt, and occasionally fund— What I'm asking, though, isn't— I understand.

[Speaker 24] (1:13:02 - 1:13:35)
I use the bad analogy and make them more money. I mean, I've been on the retirement board for 30 years. I can look through here to some of my retirees and tell you right now what they make.

And to—I guess what I'm asking is some of these men and women who really can't afford housing, and they're going to present themselves, whatever under that formula, to not be able to afford housing. Won't it be the veterans who can afford it more than the veterans that can't afford it?

[Speaker 4] (1:13:35 - 1:13:36)
No.

[Speaker 24] (1:13:36 - 1:13:37)
It's the inverse?

[Speaker 4] (1:13:38 - 1:14:58)
I don't—I mean, look. I don't know the income profiles of everybody here, and I certainly don't know who's going to apply at the end of the day. All I'm saying is that this project will be restricted for people who have incomes at 60% of AMI or lower.

It will be based on one— basically it's going to be based on a single-bedroom occupancy, so one or two people, right? Because—so a single person or two people in a single-bedroom unit, and this will have top-tier veterans' preference. We don't know who's going to apply.

We're talking about hoping that veterans who fill the income profile will apply because then they will fill the units, and that will be—we don't know who's going to apply. We only can design this project with the restrictions and the requirements that we said we were going to do—we, it's not me— but that we as a town agreed to do, and we're going to do that, and then we'll do our best to get people who fit that profile to live there. I mean, the biggest problem units, you know, restricted units have is usually more people applying that qualify than there are units.

It's usually not the other way. You know what I think we're going to do is— Oh, you're all set?

[Speaker 24] (1:14:58 - 1:15:01)
Yeah, I'm not going to ask another question. I'll get more.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:01 - 1:15:24)
All right, good. So I just want to say focus. If there's anyone here who has a question as to whether or not this is going to be veterans' housing, please come up to the mic and express your concerns.

Okay, so we're all set with any possible issues on veterans' housing. No, Mr. Patios.

[Speaker 15] (1:15:27 - 1:15:28)
We're okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:29 - 1:15:37)
No, you were already there. Okay, so— Okay, okay.

[Speaker 22] (1:15:47 - 1:16:01)
It just occurred to me that there isn't enough parking. You gave 20 spaces to the pot shop. Take the 20 spaces back from the pot shop, and you've got enough parking for the veterans' housing, and you can make everybody happy.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:07 - 1:16:14)
Margie. So, Margie. Margie, you want to talk about those?

Now we'll talk about the parking unit.

[Speaker 7] (1:16:15 - 1:16:21)
In terms of how many parking spaces are there, right now there are six parking spaces. Hold on.

[Speaker 6] (1:16:21 - 1:16:28)
Sorry, how many— Just to clarify Mr. Patios' comment, how many spaces are currently shared?

[Speaker 7] (1:16:29 - 1:16:34)
Six parking spaces are being shared right now. Not 20? No.

Oh, okay.

[Speaker 9] (1:16:34 - 1:16:35)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:36 - 1:16:38)
No, sorry. Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (1:16:39 - 1:16:42)
Kurt James is back.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:43 - 1:16:44)
Kurt James.

[Speaker 9] (1:16:44 - 1:16:45)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 10] (1:16:46 - 1:16:55)
Yeah, sorry. So, to answer his question, you are taking back those parking spaces. You're going to be terminating the license that the pot shop has to use those spaces.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:56 - 1:16:56)
That's right.

[Speaker 10] (1:16:56 - 1:16:59)
So those will be available for the project.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:00 - 1:17:07)
Great. Okay. That may be news to them now.

Now that we just let them know.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:07 - 1:17:33)
All right, so— Actually, just one thing that I wanted to point out, that currently the cannabis operator pays the town $2,000 for the use of those parking spaces, and that $2,000 is being paid to the veterans on a monthly basis right now. Yes, that's income for the veterans, for the VFW.

[Speaker 8] (1:17:34 - 1:17:42)
So the town is effectively taking away $24,000 a year in income from the veterans. Just to be clear.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:42 - 1:18:38)
Just to be clear, if the town also has the veterans in recharts, the capital expenses for recharts would be eliminated, too. So, just to be clear. Okay, so there's no question— So no one on the board has any questions on here, and I do want to make sure that people have other comments, that we take some time, you know, that is not focused on just whether or not it's for veterans.

So we're all in agreement this is veterans housing. I just want to make sure that if people— Well, we're not all in agreement, but— Okay. I think we've done our best to try to explain that.

But if there's— If we have other comments— Well, hold on.

[Speaker 6] (1:18:38 - 1:19:01)
I was wondering if maybe Kurt could just explain the timeline, the milestone timeline that was attached to the VA, so that I think the veterans could understand, and the folks who are sitting here, sort of like if this were to happen, how the timeline would sort of span out as we understand it today, Kurt.

[Speaker 10] (1:19:03 - 1:23:46)
Yeah, no, I think that's a good idea. What I wanted to say up front, though, because it came up in some of the earlier comments, what we have now is a conceptual design for this project. There is going to be extensive review, not just by the Select Board, but by the ZBA and other permitting authority about the actual design of what they want to do.

And there will be plenty of opportunities for public input and reflection on that. So I just want to— You'll see that as I go through this timeline, but I did want to kind of emphasize that up front, just because I know some folks have expressed concerns about maybe not being included in all these conversations. So what we're hoping to do, we don't have a final agreement with the neighborhood yet.

There are maybe a couple, three issues which we have left, which we are still negotiating. So that process is still ongoing. But what we do have pretty good agreement on is this timeline.

So if we— Let's just say that for the sake of discussion, again, we're not agreeing to this, but let's just say we get both of the documents, the land disposition agreement signed and the formal ground lease approved by December 1st. So that will be the effective date. If a neighborhood then has 90 days to do due diligence, so that will include looking at the title, looking at the environmental report, the survey, et cetera.

Assuming there are no problems there, they will continue on with their design process. As part of the design and permanent approval process, the town needs to divide the existing parcel so that the pot shop is kind of in one parcel and the housing in another parcel. That will take place within the next 120 days after December 1st.

The developer will then have until— So that basically takes us to April 2025. The developer then has another 30 days to submit schematic design clearance to the town. So that will basically lay out what the apartments will look like and the floor area where it's going to be located on the site, et cetera.

And that will start the actual approval process for the design of the project. At the same time, the developer will apply for a board B comprehensive permit. And I think folks are pretty familiar, based on Michonne and other projects, that that is a fairly long and intensive process.

The next stage will be once the select board has vetted the design submission and taken consideration of public comment and the ZBA has approved the design, the ZBA will issue a comprehensive permit. And that's expected to be at least targeted January of 2026. It could obviously happen sooner than that, but that's leaving it a pretty considerable window for that dual process of the select board approving the design and the ZBA approving the design to occur.

As we get to the end of that approval process, the developer will be applying for various types of financing. That's going to include bank financing, local housing tax credit financing, various public sources from the state to help subsidize the project. And generally speaking, those types of proposals for financing don't get approved by the state in the first round.

If they get approved in the first round, the developer would hear back by probably the summer of 2026. If they need to go through a second round, which is pretty standard, they probably won't get funding approval until the summer of 2027. And assuming that that takes place, then they probably will start, they're projected to start construction in the spring of 2028.

So if they actually got approval for financing a year earlier, it could be the spring of 2027, but more likely it will be the spring of 2028 before they actually start construction. And then they have about a year and a half to complete the construction, so folks would not start occupying this until the fall of 2029. So that seems like a lifetime away from us, but I will assure you, as Kim will, that that is pretty standard.

It is unfortunate, but that's just the life of an affordable housing project.

[Speaker 6] (1:23:46 - 1:23:53)
And, Kurt, could you clarify at what point in time we would have to provide the parcels tenant-free?

[Speaker 10] (1:23:55 - 1:24:05)
It would be at that construction close, so that would be in the 2028 time frame, which is likely, or possibly 2027, but more likely 2028. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:24:10 - 1:24:17)
I'd like permission to speak. Please. Would you like me to get up or just use this microphone?

[Speaker 1] (1:24:17 - 1:24:19)
I think whatever makes you happy. Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:24:19 - 1:32:53)
Thank you. Your name and address? My name is Angela Ippolito.

I live on Period Road in Swampscott. I'm a member of the planning board. I think it's really helpful to have this timeline to talk about this project, but I'd like to back up before we even talk about the town meeting vote to the project that was brought to the planning board in 2021, which was for 22 units on the Pine Street site.

Initially, we got plans for a building that was just basically a big rectangle and worked with the owners, the developers at that time, which they're not obviously in the picture anymore. And over the course of a year, we were able to redesign the building somewhat, so it was somewhat more, or I should say somewhat less offensive to the neighborhood and less offensive as detrimental to the spot that it's in, which is a flood zone, as both lots are. Ocean Street lot and the Pine Street lot are both in a flood zone, and they both sit within 10 feet of the Stacy's Brook culvert, which, as we all know, we are paying some pretty hefty fines right now to the EPA for problems that we've had with our pipes that the town is spending millions and millions of dollars on.

I think it's $8 million to date, and we have another $3.5 million scheduled to be spent repairing these pipes, and we're going to put a very large building within 10 feet of a concrete culvert, which personally I think is a big problem. We also are mandated by the state to update our floodplain bylaw because there are new maps and there are new regulations, and there's actually a new template for the floodplain bylaw that we will be bringing to town meeting in May that we are obligated to adopt, which has even more rigid restrictions. But to back up, so when we looked at that building before, the neighbors were very distressed about the size of the building, the shadows that it cast, the dangerous turning on the corner, so on and so forth.

It was a very large building that kind of loomed over the area. It finally went to zoning. Zoning had to grant several dimensional special permits as well as dimensional variants, which as most of you know is hardly ever done, just so that that building could be built, and it was redesigned in a way that was somewhat more appealing.

Then it had 21 units in it. As soon as the developers got the permit from the ZBA, which was in August, they tried to figure out how to finance the building of the structure themselves. They couldn't.

By November of 2022, they put the building on the market. They had several different developers come to them and look at the plans and say, you can't afford to build this on this site, so fine. So at that point, I think it was the following spring that the town, the select board, decided that we would try to pursue purchasing the lot because affordable veterans housing had been a priority, and it still is.

So now I'm going to catch up to town meetings. So we went to town meeting in May of 2023, and we voted on Articles 10 and 11. Article 10 was to vote to spend the money to buy the lot, to buy Pine Street.

We already owned the Ocean Street lot, the one with the current VFW unit on it, the VFW site on it. But the other site, the Pine Street, was privately owned, so we had to buy that. To explain why we were going to buy that property, the Article 11 came along, and the discussion was that we would use these two lots as one, the goal being to build affordable housing with a preference for veterans, which is the exact language in the bylaw says, to seek and lead redevelopment of the property in order to provide for affordable housing with a preference for veterans and a new VFW post 1240.

So that was the plan, and the only reason that I voted for it personally was because I said, okay, a big building like that is never going to work on just that little Pine Street property, but if you spread it out over those two lots and you did it the right way, you could make it work. And the other piece of it was that I felt, you know, because we need affordable housing so badly and we need the veterans housing so badly, I very much would have been in support of building 42 units on the two lots combined where there is ample room to do so. I'm not going to speak to the replacement of the VFW, well, I will speak to the replacement of the VFW space because what the neighborhood proposed was completely inadequate, and we are obligated, in my opinion, and I think in your opinion, to meet our obligations to provide the proper facility for the VFW vets, and I don't think there's anyone here that's going to dispute that.

So, you know, I don't know how the feeling is about using the recharged building, which is, you know, about a third larger than the current VFW, but that's neither here nor there. I want to focus on the building that's being proposed. The reason I bring this up now is I feel that I understand that B'nai B'rith would need to do a larger building than what we looked at, you know, when it was going to be privately developed because they want to put 42 units.

We had only approved 21, okay, and I understand that they'd all be, you know, one bedrooms, basically, because you've got to get it all in on that spot, so they're going to try to squeeze a lot of, which is, I get it. It makes perfect sense. It's, you know, they can afford to develop it.

I get all of that. Regardless, if that building is still going to be, by and large, much larger than the building that had been planned for the site, and it will be, and the fact is that we haven't been provided any kind of massing plan, so, you know, time will tell. We have a little floor plan looking thing, but my point is I feel like that's, I feel like the town is making a mistake for a couple of reasons.

First of all, putting that property all on one lot is not what we voted for. It's not what I voted for. I voted for using both lots to put that housing on.

That was the town meeting vote. That was the information we were given upon which to base our decision to spend $1.7 million on that, on the Pine Street property. If that had not been the understanding and a very clear understanding, and it's right here on the town meeting warrant, the language, I never would have voted for it, and I would pretty much guarantee you that a lot of other people wouldn't have either.

It's not a responsible way to build this building. I know it makes the most sense financially for B'nai B'rith, and I understand all the reasons why I believe that there's got to be a way to do better. There has to be a way to use both lots.

We'll have a lot of trouble trying to put nothing but a whole parking lot in a floodplain. I mean, there are so many problems on multiple levels here. The biggest one for me being is that we're not building the building where we said we were going to build it, and I never would have voted to put a larger building there and to spend that money.

That's all.

[Speaker 8] (1:32:54 - 1:32:57)
So can you read the second part of 11?

[Speaker 5] (1:32:57 - 1:34:28)
Certainly. Want me to read the whole article? Please.

Article 11 says disposition of land. First of all, Article 10 talks about that it's authorizing the town to spend $1.72 million to acquire the Pine Street property, and the intent of the article is to allow the town to acquire the property in order to provide a need in the community. Article 11 says disposition of land.

12-24 Pine Street and a portion of 10 New Ocean Street. So it's a portion of 10 New Ocean Street because the Calix Peak property and the VFW property are all on one lot. Those are not two separate lots.

It's one lot, and the town owns that entire swath of land. That's why they say a portion of because it doesn't include the Calix Peak property. And the article reads, to see if the town will vote to authorize the select board to convey certain property as follows, a parcel of land containing .360 acres, more or less, and all improvements thereon located at 12-24 Pine Street identified as a Census Map 340 and described in a deed recorded with the Essex-South District Registry of Deeds in Book 40542, page 4, and B, a parcel...

[Speaker 8] (1:34:28 - 1:34:40)
Excuse me. No. Ms. Cipollino, I thought there was a mention of the fact that there was going to be a new VFW post that was also constructed. I believe that was...

[Speaker 5] (1:34:40 - 1:34:41)
It's coming up, and it's in the...

[Speaker 8] (1:34:41 - 1:34:42)
Sorry to interrupt.

[Speaker 5] (1:34:43 - 1:35:48)
That's okay. I'll try to skip over some of the page numbers and stuff like that. Let's see.

And 10 New Ocean Street. Let me jump ahead of all the assessor's map information. Said parcel shown on a sketch plan as set forth in Appendix C, which was an appendix in the Town Meeting Warrant, and on such terms...

Let's see. Excuse me. In Appendix C, on file with the Town Clerk for affordable housing with a preference for veterans and inclusion of a new VFW post 1240 and such other purposes as the select board shall determine, and on such terms and conditions as the select board shall deem appropriate, and to authorize the select board to enter into all agreements and take any action as may be necessary or convenient to accomplish the foregoing purposes or take any action relative thereto.

So it's clearly talking about building the affordable housing on those two blocks.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:48 - 1:35:51)
It's also clearly talking about building a new VFW.

[Speaker 5] (1:35:51 - 1:35:53)
I'm not disputing that.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:53 - 1:36:47)
Okay. I think... May I try to neutrally...

I mean, we've had this, whether or not it's veterans housing. I think many of us feel that absolutely there's an intention for this to be veterans housing. We have a lot of sway to make sure that happens.

I believe that at this point, obviously what Angela just read is what was voted on, and to David's point, you know, there's two pieces to it. Yes, there's a town meeting vote. It said it was going to be using both these parcels, and there's going to be a VFW there.

So as time has gone on, no option on the table at the moment satisfies both of those pieces. Okay, just as everyone... I want to make sure we're just clear on the facts, right?

[Speaker 5] (1:36:47 - 1:36:50)
If I could interject one little thing.

[Speaker 2] (1:36:50 - 1:37:09)
Let me just make a correction. So just to restate it, so we have two options, and Marcy said earlier there were three options, right? One that really was what we originally started with, which was using both parcels and having the VFW post inside the new building.

[Speaker 5] (1:37:09 - 1:37:09)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:09 - 1:37:10)
Okay?

[Speaker 5] (1:37:11 - 1:37:13)
But a full post. A full post inside the building.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:14 - 1:37:16)
Well, it doesn't say a full post, right?

[Speaker 5] (1:37:16 - 1:37:18)
I mean, the idea is to replace.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:18 - 1:37:19)
Angela, let me finish.

[Speaker 28] (1:37:19 - 1:37:19)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:20 - 1:37:30)
Okay? It said to build a new VFW post. It didn't say of the exact same square footage.

Of course, that would be a reasonable interpretation.

[Speaker 28] (1:37:31 - 1:37:31)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:31 - 1:39:04)
Okay? But when they went to design the building, that didn't seem to be possible. It doesn't mean it was impossible, but that's not what we got back for, okay?

That's not what they bid, just to state that. Okay? It was a post that was much smaller.

Okay? So we sat there and we stared at that and said, hmm, that's not good. All right, so what are the other options?

Can we try to keep the post as it is? It wasn't the first thing we said, but it was a suggestion from the vets. We'll keep the post as it is and build all the housing on the other site, which would be in contravention, strictly, of what Town Meeting Vote was, and associated issues with that, which would be one floor higher, and there would be more challenges with parking.

We don't know how many parking spaces really would be needed. It's near the train station, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So that was one option.

And then the other option is spread the building out, use both parcels, but then have the post be at recharts. Maybe this is completely obvious to everyone, but I just want to make sure that we're being clear about the options. Have I laid them out fairly as far as people are concerned?

Yeah, Angela.

[Speaker 5] (1:39:04 - 1:40:14)
I will say that when B'nai B'rith, and I understand how they have to get around these numbers, so this isn't a criticism of them per se. It's the situation, the circumstances. They responded to an RFP.

The RFP clearly states that the building goes on two lots and it incorporates a new 3,000-square-foot VFW post 1240 to include a canteen, restrooms, and meeting spaces for the VFW and veteran-related organizations. That didn't happen. So that didn't happen.

But when they responded to this, it's, you know, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure the lawyers can speak to this. That's our expectation. That's what we needed, and we didn't get it.

And it falls far short of what we voted on and what we specify in the RFP. Those are my concerns.

[Speaker 1] (1:40:14 - 1:40:14)
Katie?

[Speaker 6] (1:40:17 - 1:40:19)
Feed my time to Kim first, please. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:23 - 1:42:42)
We obviously have a situation where there's no perfect solution to what we set out to do. We made a town meeting vote, which made a ton of sense. You know, it included a new VFW post.

It didn't actually specify that it was going to be on the same site, but it was a commitment to make sure there was a post. It was a commitment to build the housing. So we did this thing at town meeting.

Then we put together an RFP that stated something that was a little more specific, and B'nai B'rith responded to it. We didn't like their response, but they responded to it in keeping with the RFP. They gave us what we asked for, and we are now saying it's not acceptable because we don't like the size of it.

It didn't work out. As you said, they were constrained with the response. They gave a response.

The bottom line is we don't like the response. So now here we are with a parcel we purchased, a commitment to build housing, a commitment to provide veterans housing, and we're not 100% happy with all the options, but we have to come up with an option. We have to come up with a solution because the town spent money on the site.

We made the commitment. We want to do this, and it feels like everybody's going to have to give a little bit to get something that is more than a little bit great, like really great and not perfect. The Affordable Housing Trust committed money already, and it's going to stay with the project.

It's going to defray acquisition costs early, and we committed that. I think the trust is indifferent, ultimately where the post ends up. Obviously we want to honor the project, but if there's a solution that gets everybody substantially what we need, that's where we should be focusing our efforts.

We can pick apart the RFP. We can pick apart the RFP. We can pick apart the town meeting vote.

You can be annoyed that there were meetings with people that you didn't like or whatever, but at the end of the day, you heard Kurt's description of how much time it takes, and the more we wring our hands about the process and not make a decision about the outcome, the longer that timeline is.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:43 - 1:42:47)
I agree with you, Kim. One second. If you don't mind, I just wanted to...

[Speaker 1] (1:42:47 - 1:42:51)
I just want to make sure that Katie Phelan has a chance.

[Speaker 6] (1:42:51 - 1:45:34)
Oh, I'm sorry, Katie. That's okay. So I just really want to echo some of the things that Kim very clearly stated, which is we...

Actually, she said something very sort of profound earlier that it was like, do I do something or do I do nothing? And something is not always perfection. We know through this process we can't attain perfection right now, right?

So we are trying, I am trying, to take all of the stakeholders at the table, the veterans, the neighbors, the 350 town meeting members, the Affordable Housing Trust, the seniors who need housing, and come up with the best possible solution to make some, if not most, hope best case scenario all, but likely not all of our wants and needs occur. And yes, that is going to leave people wanting more. I can't deny that.

That is absolutely the case. But what I hope we can do here is figure out the needs, list out the needs, make sure the needs are met, and all the stakeholders' needs are met, not just the neighbors, not just the vets, not just the post, because the post is part of the veterans' community, but the veterans' community is obviously greater than the post, although the post has a great presence in the veteran community here. And determine whether or not we can't find a balanced approach to move forward so that we can meet all the needs of all the stakeholders in a way that gets something extremely incredible to occur in this town.

Never before, to my understanding, has this occurred in the Commonwealth, that there has been affordable housing that has been produced which has a veterans' preference and a residential veterans' preference. Never before has a board of five people stood here and committed to you that we would do everything we can to put together a committee to make sure that we would get as many of those 400 veterans who might be able to meet the economics guidelines, understand the application process, work through the application process with them, have them apply, make sure that we fill the coffers as high as we can with veterans so that it is totally veterans, but we are constrained by state funding mechanisms, federal funding mechanisms. Our developer, B'nai, they have their own board that they have to answer to, so we are doing the best we can with all the stakeholders to get the best scenario possible. I just want to reiterate that point.

[Speaker 5] (1:45:36 - 1:47:03)
I'll just follow up to finish my thought and then I'll let everyone else speak to this. So I agree with what Kim had to say. I agree with all of that.

When I brought forth my concerns, I didn't mean that, and that's it. I mean, obviously we need to do something, but I look at it like there are... The reason I bring this up now is because I feel like the train's on the track and we've got to at least start thinking about some of these options, okay?

So if you look at that lot even, and I'm just riffing off the top of my head, you look at those two lots together, why couldn't that building be stretched out a little bit and perhaps cover both lots and take that whole corner of Erie Street and Pine and maybe it has some outdoor parking, but it's more park-like and has a lot more green space? You have a slightly shorter building. Maybe we can pull it away from the Stacy's Brook a little bit.

I'm not asking for, or I'm not asking for anything. I'm not suggesting that, you know, throw the whole thing out. I'm just suggesting let's look at this a little smarter than without, you know, kind of blowing it out of the water for B'nai B'rith, but just saying how can we, I mean, we've got all this space.

Let's do a better job using it and at least alleviate some of the problems that are there. Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:04 - 1:47:05)
Can I just follow up to Andrew?

[Speaker 28] (1:47:05 - 1:47:06)
Yes, please.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:06 - 1:47:40)
So I think that the thing that we also need to reiterate, as Margie stated, the picture that was put forward is just a preliminary sketch of what could be done on the lot. It is not what B'nai is proposing is the final building size. The only thing in the LDA, correct me if I'm wrong, is that it's a three-story structure and that it doesn't go greater than that so that we limit the size to the neighborhood, the sizing and the shadowing, the sun coming in.

That building has to remain three stories with the mechanisms on top.

[Speaker 1] (1:47:40 - 1:47:40)
No greater.

[Speaker 6] (1:47:41 - 1:48:02)
No greater than three stories with the mechanisms on top. And whatever people much smarter than me develop on that lot has to meet the conditions of the LDA and then has to come to people much smarter than me at the planning board for the permitting for the 40B. No?

No, we review it at the ZBA.

[Speaker 19] (1:48:02 - 1:48:03)
I'm sorry, the ZBA.

[Speaker 6] (1:48:03 - 1:48:53)
I apologize. The ZBA for the permitting process, which is another public process. So whether or not there's, Angela, to your point, whether or not there's a park on the side or whether or not there's parking on one side versus the other, that conversation hasn't even started yet, right?

Because there's a whole process that we have to get to before that even happens. So if we don't agree to an LDA and we don't agree to a ground lease, then we never get to that conversation. And I think I just want to be really clear that that process doesn't end tonight.

It doesn't even start tonight. It doesn't even start until we get to an agreement with these documents. And once that agreement is or is not determined, then the whole process goes through with public engagement involving where trees are and where parking spots are and where the front door is and all that conversation.

[Speaker 2] (1:48:54 - 1:48:59)
Right, but the decision about where the post is does get made with this document.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:59 - 1:49:00)
Sure.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:00 - 1:49:00)
Just to be clear.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:00 - 1:49:01)
Yes, David.

[Speaker 2] (1:49:02 - 1:49:05)
Yeah, no, I love the fact that we're having this conversation tonight.

[Speaker 8] (1:49:06 - 1:49:27)
I love the fact that we're having this conversation tonight in public. It's probably several months delayed. We should have been talking about this long ago.

We should have not been talking about all of these various issues in executive session, how tall the building is, where the post is going to be located, parking. These are all public. These are all matters that should be discussed publicly, period.

[Speaker 6] (1:49:29 - 1:49:32)
No, no, no. Determination hasn't made us to any of that.

[Speaker 8] (1:49:32 - 1:49:43)
But we, as a board, we discuss this behind closed doors. That's not an executive session agenda item. That should be something that we should be discussing publicly.

[Speaker 1] (1:49:43 - 1:50:03)
I just want to be really clear. I reached out to legal counsel to just double-check to see whether or not, because I thought, oh, should we be talking? Do we talk in executive session or do we talk in open?

And it was made very clear to me from town council that we needed to be speaking in executive session.

[Speaker 8] (1:50:04 - 1:51:02)
About negotiation of the land development agreement, not about negotiation of where the post is located or parking or height or any of that. I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you, Madam Chair. Well, disagree with KP Law.

I will disagree with KP Law. Furthermore, I was part of at least two dozen conversations with these veterans working groups. I spent the last two years meeting and building relationships and having conversations and working really hard in conjunction with Margie Golaska, Director of Community and Economic Development, the town administrator, and various members of the VFW and the VFW executive leadership.

On October 9th, you joined our discussion, Mary Ellen, for the first time, and we met with leadership. We told them what we were going to do, and later that month we changed our tune. And while the developer was updated to the changes, the veterans were not.

Two days ago...

[Speaker 1] (1:51:02 - 1:51:04)
The veterans were notified.

[Speaker 8] (1:51:04 - 1:51:31)
Excuse me, two days ago you had a meeting with Mr. Emerton. I'm the liaison to the veterans. I wasn't notified.

There was little notice to the veterans that they could even be part of this. So after two years of my personal involvement, dozens of meetings, I wasn't notified, I wasn't present. It's disappointing but not surprising given the lack of communications and transparency from you, the chair.

And tonight we're going to take a vote to move the veterans from their posts.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:32 - 1:51:37)
We are not taking a vote, Mr. Grishman. We're not taking a vote. We don't have the documents.

[Speaker 8] (1:51:37 - 1:51:46)
But let me continue. So it was determined that we had to move from Pine Street to another location.

[Speaker 28] (1:51:47 - 1:51:48)
I'll give you this.

[Speaker 8] (1:51:49 - 1:52:46)
The plan for the parking at Recharts was counting the street parking around the Recharts building as a solution to the parking issue. However, we can't count the street parking at the Pine Street location. Furthermore, if we're moving the location of the veterans' post at a date to be determined, 26, 27, 28, whenever that may be, this is going to result in a relocation of the liquor license, which we haven't noticed.

So we're potentially taking action here, and there are ramifications where we haven't had further conversations. Again, it's extremely troubling, and there's a pattern with the lack of transparency and the lack of communication. I mean, last month the town made a promise to its veterans.

We sat and we said, you can stay. You can stay at your post. We're going to build around you.

And this month the town should follow through on that promise that we made. Amen.

[Speaker 9] (1:52:53 - 1:52:55)
I'd like to hear from Mrs. DiPietro.

[Speaker 2] (1:52:55 - 1:52:56)
Me too.

[Speaker 9] (1:53:00 - 1:53:01)
We're giving her the whole room.

[Speaker 13] (1:53:04 - 1:56:46)
Hi, Barbara DiPietro, 94 Eastman Avenue, and I am the senior vice president of VFW Auxiliary. And I'm going on a little different track. I'm speaking tonight to express our concerns about the recent closed-door actions, which David spoke to, and moving the veterans' post from Pine Street to the Reach Arts building at the corner of Borough Street and Thomas Road.

And for anyone who doesn't know, that building was built in 1923 for the returning veterans from World War I, and it was called the American Leading Post. It fell into the hands of the town a number of years ago. That's a whole big story I won't get into.

So for over a year, the veterans of this community have worked in good faith with the town and were promised that they would stay at the post at Pine Street. And a week later, we're shocked to find out that they were not. So I have some questions about that area.

Has there been an independent feasibility study of traffic and parking in the Borough Street-Thomas Road neighborhood? I have a dentist over there in that neighborhood. You can't park there.

I park three streets away and walk. There's maybe four spots, maybe five, behind the building. We have a lot of veterans who are handicapped in two different degrees.

That's just one little issue. And will there be public meetings with the community, or the Olmstead community in particular, regarding moving a liquor license into the residential neighborhood? I don't even know if you can do that.

The other issue is the condition of the building, the Reach Arts building. There is a ramp. I know that.

I've been down that ramp. There's a ramp into the, oh, I call it the basement, but whatever the ground floor is. There's a ramp into that room.

The floors above it, I don't know who did this, but it's all stairs and doors, and it's kind of crazy. And then there's a large room on the third floor called the ballroom. It's a big meeting room.

That building would require an elevator for the veterans to be able to use it. And I have recently seen an estimate that it would cost $200,000 for an elevator. I don't know if that's accurate, and I just saw that, but maybe.

So the parking, that. The neighborhood is a neighborhood of families and children. Where we are now, they all try to be respectful of the neighborhood, but it's in a little commercial strip there.

It's not got a house right next door to it and a house right next door to it on the other side. Not that there are noises, not that there's a problem, but it's just good where it is and might not be good here. So I know that this is coming up at town meeting on the 9th.

And I would like to respectfully ask you to request indefinite postponement of this article at the meeting until all of these issues can be resolved. Thank you.

[Speaker 28] (1:56:46 - 1:56:54)
Thank you. Let me just clarify.

[Speaker 9] (1:56:56 - 1:56:58)
You want to just let her know it's not on town meeting?

[Speaker 1] (1:56:59 - 1:57:01)
It's not on town meeting.

[Speaker 9] (1:57:01 - 1:57:02)
What?

[Speaker 1] (1:57:03 - 1:57:04)
It's not on town meeting.

[Speaker 6] (1:57:11 - 1:57:12)
It already was on the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:12 - 1:59:40)
It was on the warrant. Is there anybody from, I just want to, two things, Mr. Grishman keeps talking about closed meetings. A closed meeting would be an executive, there are executive session meetings where we bring things up and it is not open to the public and because there is a possibility it could bring possible negotiating problems with what we are looking to do.

He also brought up the fact that we had approved, there was a vote, we had approved putting the building next to Recharts. What he failed to say is at that, next to the post, thank you, next to the post. What he failed to say was at that meeting we did not have all of the information.

Brought the meeting back together, we discussed additional information and we changed our opinion. One thing that is very important to understand from, I'm going to say from my perspective, is to put a four floor building that has to be first, it has to be elevated because it is a flood zone and then put mechanicals on top of it, condensed right on that corner is too big for that neighborhood. As far as parking, the parking issue is a problem both in that design and also in moving the veterans to another spot.

It's a problem in either way we look so that's really a moot point. But the big issue here is we are having serious pushback on the size of buildings in our neighborhoods. Right now we've got the Westcott, we've got multiple people complaining about the, see, people don't like the Westcott, the size of it and so to Katie's, Katie's opinion here is trying to find a balance.

That's what we're trying to do, trying to find a balance. So, you know, I think it's really important that people understand a five story building in that neighborhood is a problem and if there's anybody in the neighborhood who hasn't spoken yet that would like to get up and speak, feel free. If you could just wait one second, I'll get your question.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:42 - 1:59:57)
Okay, Mariana, I just have to again, I have to note like, characterizing it as a five story building, which we have no indication that it's a five story building, we don't need to add to the lack of clarity here.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:57 - 2:00:05)
Four stories elevated with mechanics on top, you can call it whatever you want, let's call it four stories elevated, mechanics on top.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:05 - 2:02:26)
Understood. And just to be clear, comparing that, the other option is one that's elevated with three stories with mechanicals on top. Okay, so let's just like not, we don't need to keep fuzzing the issue here, okay?

There's facts, like we're talking about the difference of one story that can mean the world to someone and that's totally cool. Okay, but let's just be clear, that's the distinction, right? As best we understand it right now, and back to Angela's point, we do not have any indication that this building is any bigger than what was proposed and approved before, okay?

And you admitted yourself, you don't know exactly how big this other building is going to be, so you can't say that it's going to be bigger. So it's just, there's, this actually comes down, I think, to something relatively clear. As you said, the parking is going to be a challenge in either option, in one neighborhood or the other, right?

The issue of a liquor license is actually a new piece of information for me, I hadn't really thought about that in a residential neighborhood, put that to the side for a moment. But we're really, I think, all authentically trying to assess whether or not you choose to keep the post where it is, that's a process we went through with the vets, we got feedback, we looked at that, said that was really important, try to honor that, and yet, the corollary to that is that you've got a building that's one story higher, so that has an impact on the neighborhood, just, that's a fact, right?

Your other option, the building's shorter, one story shorter, and move the post. I think, actually, like, that's what it boils down to here, so it's a matter of just trying to just, how do you weigh those two things? This is going to be veterans housing, it's going to be in a flood zone either way, all these things are just, it's going to be a parking issue either way, so try to boil it down so we're not over-dramatizing it.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:26 - 2:02:58)
Okay, so I do want to hear what you have to say, but I also want everybody to understand, we've been talking about this now for just short of two hours, and we also have other things on the agenda, so I really want to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak, but we do have some other things, so we do have to consider whether or not we end the discussion and then pick it back up after we get through some of our other things, or I just want to ask the select board, I just want to ask the select board what you would like to do. I don't have my list there. Would you like, how about if you speak first and then?

[Speaker 13] (2:02:59 - 2:03:04)
My name is Christine Johnson, and I am the only abutter to this property.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:04 - 2:03:10)
Can you, can you just say your, 12 Ely Street? Okay. Swampscott, right?

[Speaker 13] (2:03:11 - 2:03:12)
I'm sorry?

[Speaker 1] (2:03:12 - 2:03:13)
Swampscott?

[Speaker 13] (2:03:13 - 2:03:31)
Yes. So the fact that you're thinking of a four or five-story building is going to mean I get no light at all in my yard, or block anything into my house. And I just want you to consider that as well, because I'm the only abutter to the property.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:33 - 2:03:41)
Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Thank you.

Now, Susan Bishop?

[Speaker 20] (2:03:42 - 2:03:51)
Thank you, Chairman. As Kim mentioned, we all have to give a little, so why does it have to be this big monstrosity? Why can't we go down to something smaller and leave it be alone?

[Speaker 19] (2:03:51 - 2:03:53)
Like, why do you need an opportunity to grow?

[Speaker 9] (2:03:54 - 2:03:58)
Why does it have to be so big? Can I answer that? Yes.

Go ahead.

[Speaker 6] (2:03:58 - 2:04:14)
So in order for it to be financially feasible for B'nai B'rith, it has to be approximately, the developer, it has to be approximately 40 units. If they can't go, we have asked. Are we married to that developer?

They're the only ones who answered the RFP.

[Speaker 20] (2:04:15 - 2:04:17)
But what if we ask for a smaller building?

[Speaker 6] (2:04:17 - 2:04:36)
Well, we asked for 30 to 40 in the initial RFP ask. Like, when we put the RFP out, we didn't say we want 40 units, or we didn't give a specific number. We gave a range, all the way from 30 to 40.

They answered with that number.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:37 - 2:05:05)
That's a shame. Okay, so we're going, is there, nope. Is there anybody new that would like to speak?

I'm only going with somebody new. Mr. Patios, because we're going to go, I will come back to public comment after our meeting. But we've got people that have been sitting here for two hours that we have to address.

We also have to open and close our warrant tonight. So if there's, so we're going to move on to other topics. And then if.

Public comment first. If they haven't spoken, right?

[Speaker 15] (2:05:05 - 2:05:06)
There's a gentleman.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:07 - 2:05:09)
Is there a gentleman? One second.

[Speaker 28] (2:05:09 - 2:05:11)
One second.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:11 - 2:05:29)
No, no, hold on. Is there a gentleman who has not spoken for public comment? Sir?

Okay, you know what, I will, I will pull you in. I'll pull you in first. He's under the petition.

He's under the petition. I'm sorry. He's in the consent agenda?

[Speaker 2] (2:05:29 - 2:05:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:30 - 2:05:44)
Oh, gosh. Okay. Go on and get a snack.

Come back. Okay, all right. So we're going to, should we pull that out of the consent agenda?

No. Are we going to, are we going to close the session? He wants to talk.

Oh, I'm so sorry, Dave. One second. Okay.

Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:05:44 - 2:05:59)
Can you just approach the mic, though? Because otherwise people at home won't hear what you're saying. And I'm sure it's, they want to hear you.

Thank you. Sorry about that. I got your address.

[Speaker 27] (2:05:59 - 2:06:14)
I, I, yes. I just wanted to say the VFW was established in Swampskate on August 19th, 1924. That's 100 years.

So let's do what's right for the veterans. It's all I have to say.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:14 - 2:06:28)
Okay. So we're going to, we're actually going to put the town administrator's report at the end.

[Speaker 6] (2:06:29 - 2:06:38)
Can I interrupt? I just want to make sure that if anybody hasn't spoken yet, they would like to speak about this matter. So I'll make sure they're really clear.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:44 - 2:06:54)
You, you've been given two opportunities to speak, Mr. Patzios. What, what more would you like to speak about, Mr. Patzios?

[Speaker 9] (2:06:57 - 2:06:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 22] (2:07:02 - 2:08:03)
This is very easily solved. When you open your warrant, you put this RFP back out, because when it's ever, as an elected official, I had to take certain courses. And one of those happened to be with RFP.

I'm also the governor's appointee to the housing authority and the chair. So when we issue an RFP, that RFP has to be responded to precisely the way it's written. If there's any changes to that RFP, it's null and void.

It has to be resubmitted and publicly advertised for respondents. You only had one respondent. Nothing wrong with B'nai B'rith, but they're not the sole source.

And I bet you if you put it out today, you'll have other respondents. And make the rules clear. It either includes it there or it doesn't include it there.

By the way, I think it's not a bad idea, the former American Legion post, but there's devils in the details. I think that all the ingredients here require a resubmission of an RFP that clears the air, and everyone can vote at it in town meeting. That's the solution.

Thank you.

[Speaker 28] (2:08:08 - 2:08:10)
There's a question. There's a question.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:11 - 2:08:26)
Okay. So hold on. Marsha Dalton?

Go ahead. Hold on. Hold on.

Hold on. Marsha. Hi.

I'm Marsha Dalton, 37 Pine Street in Swansgate.

[Speaker 13] (2:08:26 - 2:08:36)
Of course, Swansgate. Sorry. I just have one question.

Am I right in assuming that nothing is going to be decided tonight? That's a good assumption.

[Speaker 28] (2:08:36 - 2:08:36)
Okay.

[Speaker 13] (2:08:37 - 2:08:38)
That's what I wanted to know.

[Speaker 28] (2:08:38 - 2:08:39)
Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:08:40 - 2:08:40)
Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:41 - 2:09:10)
Yes. Okay. So if people want to leave, you can leave, and then if you want to stay, and we'll come back to this at the end, you're welcome to do that, too.

But right now we're going to start to go through our agenda. Okay? I just want to give you the opportunity in case you do want to leave.

But you could stay. I mean, this is pretty interesting stuff.

[Speaker 2] (2:09:14 - 2:09:24)
Take me with you. I have to say that I'm really proud of the fact that we turned this anger into chanting for an RFP. I've never heard the RFP chant.

[Speaker 9] (2:09:24 - 2:09:29)
We totally did. Feel free. Go ahead.

[Speaker 27] (2:09:29 - 2:09:32)
I'm good for the moment, but I'm good. I already won.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:32 - 2:09:34)
No. Okay. Everybody's good?

[Speaker 4] (2:09:34 - 2:09:38)
Okay. Okay. Let's keep moving.

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:38 - 2:09:53)
Let's go. So next on our agenda. Mr. Patios. Mr. Patios?

[Speaker 9] (2:09:53 - 2:09:55)
We're just trying to get to our agenda.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:57 - 2:10:23)
So can I make a motion to pull the national grid out of the defense agenda so this gentleman can move along? Can we have a second? We have a motion on the floor to pull the national grid out of the agenda.

Mr. National Grid? Hold on. He's in the consent agenda.

Hello.

[Speaker 21] (2:10:24 - 2:10:37)
My name is Steven. I'm here to represent National Grid. We have a petition for two underground conduits about four inches that goes from Pole 2 to 11 Boyston Street.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:40 - 2:10:44)
Mr. Acting Town Administrator, do you have this information? Are you good with this?

[Speaker 15] (2:10:45 - 2:10:45)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (2:10:46 - 2:10:47)
So...

[Speaker 15] (2:10:47 - 2:11:11)
Yeah. So there's a new development going on at 11 Boyston Street. They've already agreed to pave curb-to-curb there because it was a bonded street.

The developers paving it because there's new water and sewer. This is going to be inside their limits. They're just running the electrical instead of being above grade.

It's going underneath the ground across the street. Relatively simple. And I have no issues with it.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:12 - 2:11:20)
Does anybody on this floor have any comments or issues? Nope. Can we have a motion to accept the changes for National Grid?

[Speaker 27] (2:11:21 - 2:11:21)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:22 - 2:11:25)
Second, Katie? Second. Sure, second.

Okay. All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (2:11:25 - 2:11:25)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:26 - 2:11:27)
Motion passes. Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (2:11:27 - 2:11:30)
Thank you. You have to tell us next time first.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:31 - 2:11:35)
Well, to be fair, we had started before he arrived, so...

[Speaker 15] (2:11:35 - 2:11:37)
Okay. He's getting paid by the hour. All right.

[Speaker 1] (2:11:39 - 2:11:59)
Okay. So next, we're going to have an update from the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Chair, Elizabeth Smith. Here, hold on.

We'll get you a mic. Diane, come right up here. Oh, right here.

Is it working?

[Speaker 2] (2:12:01 - 2:12:01)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:02 - 2:12:02)
I'll be brief.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:03 - 2:12:04)
Oh, don't be brief.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:04 - 2:12:05)
You don't have to.

[Speaker 2] (2:12:05 - 2:12:07)
Okay. Great job. You're all great.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:08 - 2:12:42)
Okay. We just wanted to kind of give you an update since the last time we spoke with you was in July, and we've been doing quite a lot of things. We have two meetings a month.

We approve minutes from our last meeting and our current meeting almost all the time. Our meetings have been recorded since June. They're all available on the cable channel, and we can be reached at wsiacatswamps.ma.gov. You can reach me directly or any member of the committee anytime.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:43 - 2:12:43)
Anytime?

[Speaker 3] (2:12:44 - 2:19:25)
Yeah, you can send it anytime. Okay. I'll read it once a day, and that's for all of you guys and for the public.

So we have formed several working groups. Among them are sewer, water, stormwater, technical, testing, financial, and rules and regulations. So they are of various sizes, usually two to three people, never more than four, so that we can be really nimble and look at things between our meetings.

For communication, we're expanding through the town website, through our water and sewer page, and the DPW page. You may have noticed that there's an update on the Fisherman's Beach sewer rehab work now available on the town website, both through the DPW page and through the water and sewer page. It lists the streets that are going to be worked on.

It has a map to show the areas that are going to be worked on. And Gina will probably mention a little bit more about that work, but that should begin in two to three weeks, by mid-December anyway. We're looking for other ways to improve communication, to get information out to people.

But all of our meetings, as are your meetings, are public, so people have lots of different ways that they can find out what we're talking about and what's going on. We are reviewing the water, sewer, and stormwater rules and regulations, and looking for ways to update and strengthen them. One quick example is that it was found that there are some apartment buildings on Humphrey Street that had sump pumps connected directly to the sewer pipes.

That is not good for the sewer pipes. It fills them up with water, increases our costs, makes them less efficient, and also that infiltration of stormwater and groundwater into the sewer pipes can force sewage out of breaks and leaks, so it works both ways and it's just not a good scenario. When we looked for what rule or regulation would cover that, there's not a specific bylaw or rule in town, in Swampscott, that addresses that specific issue.

There is a state statute. We checked with town council, because you might know sometimes state statutes aren't always clear, or sometimes they seem vague, or they rely on precedent, so it's not always apparent what state statute might cover the situation. They said to us that the state law would cover us, and we could use that to inform the owners of these buildings that they need to rectify the situation, but they also recommended that as many, many towns have done, we develop a bylaw that specifically addresses this issue of infiltration of stormwater, sump pumps, et cetera, into the sewers.

We're working on that among just a general review of all of our rules and regulations and bylaws to make sure that they are as good and solid as they can be. We're looking at sewer laterals. We're evaluating how they contribute to pollution and what we can do to make sure that they are updated and upgraded on a regular basis as they should be.

We want to make sure that we have a comprehensive approach. Maybe you know that in phase one of King's Beach consent decree work, we repaired about 470 laterals, which is about 10% of the total in town. As part of the fishermen's beach work, there's a plan to repair another 52 or 55 laterals.

There is an approach that says if a sewer lateral goes over a storm pipe, then it's automatically repaired, because if it's leaking, it's going to get into the storm drain system before anything else does. So we're looking at that. Does that make sense?

Is there a way to make that even more stringent or more robust? So we're reviewing all of that and looking at what neighboring towns, other municipalities in the state are doing to upgrade the approach to sewer laterals. Stormwater, we're investigating the practicality and feasibility of a stormwater enterprise fund.

Many towns in Massachusetts and across the country have established these. It's not quite as easy or as straightforward as a water and sewer enterprise fund, because there's not a fee for use of a storm drain system. So we're looking at different options, and we'll come to you with a proposal when we're ready.

Technical, we are exploring the town's GIS maps. We are in the process of getting one of the licenses that Cline Felder holds for us. And we'll be looking at what they've already built out, which is specifically for the town and includes maps of all the pipes as well as the sewer laterals.

And ideally, eventually, we'll be able to map out where work has been done, where work is planned to be done, and really use it as a communication tool as well as a management tool. Water, you may know that there's a whole grant and a process going on with respect to leaded pipes. So there was a mailing that went out about that as we build up the database that says where we might have lead pipes and where they need to be addressed.

We don't think we have virtually any, but we are required to build out this map. Financial, we're working with the DPW director slash acting town manager to determine the capital needs for fiscal year 26 and beyond. Testing, we are pleased with the work that was accomplished over the summer.

Those test results identified issues at Fisherman's Beach, specifically the Marshall Street outfall but also the Cassidy outfall. And they supported the need to begin that work as soon as possible. IDDE testing that was performed in those areas indicated high levels of pollution coming from the Greenwood Ave area.

Gino managed to get a camera, looked up those pipes, found seven breaks.

[Speaker 10] (2:19:25 - 2:19:25)
Five.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:25 - 2:19:45)
Five breaks, which have all been repaired in the Greenwood Ave and Rockland Street area. But we think it's prudent to align the sewer main in those areas to really make sure that they're secure. They're built on ledge.

They have a tendency to shift. We haven't aligned them, right?

[Speaker 15] (2:19:45 - 2:19:45)
No.

[Speaker 3] (2:19:45 - 2:20:43)
Okay. Not yet. It'll be part of the project.

It'll be added to the project. And Kings Beach, we talked about this a little while ago. We learned that there was a water main leak in the Curry Circle area that was artificially depressing bacteria levels so that when the IDDE testing was done in the spring at the Stacey's Brook area, the bacteria looked really good.

It's like, wow, this is great. But it was because of the chlorine coming from the water main leak. We fixed that water main leak, but we still, this week, right, this week, we showed high chlorine levels there as well.

So there has to be another leak. So we're investigating to see where that is so we can fix that. And then we can get true readings.

And finally, we are looking, investigating the ultraviolet, right, ultraviolet pilot. And we're going to talk about that in the next bit.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:44 - 2:20:45)
Does anybody have any questions?

[Speaker 2] (2:20:45 - 2:20:59)
I do. Can you give us a sense of the work at Fisherman's, to either of you, that's underway right now? I know we found some juicy situations that have been corrected.

I'm not sure if those are the same ones.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:59 - 2:21:01)
Yep. The exact same going up Greenwood?

[Speaker 2] (2:21:02 - 2:21:19)
Yep. Yep. So I guess minor question is, have we done testing at the outfall?

Have we kind of materially, do we think we've materially impacted the flow of E. coli from fixing that?

[Speaker 15] (2:21:20 - 2:21:21)
Not yet. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:21 - 2:21:22)
We haven't fixed it yet.

[Speaker 15] (2:21:22 - 2:21:36)
Yeah, well, we'll fix the breaks. But before you can go find the mains, you have to fix the broken pipes for us. So step one has been accomplished.

And Greene's is going to start digging in coming into time on December 2nd. The lining will probably start at the beginning of January.

[Speaker 2] (2:21:36 - 2:21:49)
Okay. And then just to follow up on that, the original 1.8 million or whatever contracts that we have, am I getting that right? Yep.

When do we expect that chunk to be done?

[Speaker 15] (2:21:50 - 2:21:54)
By July 1st, 2025. Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:55 - 2:22:13)
I have a question. On Humphrey Street, do we have an issue with Humphrey, somewhere up on Humphrey Street by Kings Beach with any homes or anything like that leaking, tapping into the stormwater? That's the one I was talking about.

[Speaker 3] (2:22:13 - 2:22:18)
And Gina's already met with the management company for the buildings. So there's a repair.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:19 - 2:22:21)
So when will that be repaired?

[Speaker 15] (2:22:23 - 2:22:37)
Probably in the springtime. But that issue I think is a little different. It's not that sewer's tied into the drain.

It's just the opposite. It's drain tied into the sewer. So essentially what that's doing is costing us more money because we're treating clean water.

[Speaker 28] (2:22:37 - 2:22:38)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:38 - 2:22:40)
And because it's overtaxing.

[Speaker 15] (2:22:40 - 2:22:45)
Exactly. It does. It does.

Yeah. That's a great point.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:45 - 2:22:51)
Thank you. But we're looking at having it completed or fixed by, you're saying spring?

[Speaker 15] (2:22:52 - 2:22:52)
By the spring.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:53 - 2:22:54)
Is that a reasonable plan?

[Speaker 8] (2:22:54 - 2:23:08)
Are we evaluating all of our multifamily or structures to ensure that this, you know, I guess the drainage into the sewers is not a more prevalent issue across town with other structures?

[Speaker 15] (2:23:08 - 2:23:20)
Yeah. So every time we do a home gets sold in Swanson, we have to do a final water read. The water department goes into each one of the houses, single family, two family, multi family, whatever it is, and make sure they do not have some pumps tied into the sewer.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:20 - 2:23:30)
No, understood. But I believe, I believe there are structures in town that have, that have their gutters that are going right into the, that are going right into the sewer.

[Speaker 15] (2:23:31 - 2:23:32)
That's what we're checking on.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:32 - 2:23:32)
That's what you're checking on.

[Speaker 15] (2:23:32 - 2:23:38)
Absolutely. Gutters. Yep.

Okay. So would. Some pumps, gutters.

Okay.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:38 - 2:23:42)
So you, okay. So you found that on one, on one building or?

[Speaker 15] (2:23:43 - 2:23:44)
No, on the multiple buildings.

[Speaker 8] (2:23:44 - 2:23:45)
Multiple buildings.

[Speaker 15] (2:23:45 - 2:23:45)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:46 - 2:23:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 15] (2:23:46 - 2:23:54)
We don't allow them, we don't give them a final read until they correct the problem. Got it. Okay.

Okay. Sometimes it's just as simple as taking the discharge hose and pumping it into your backyard.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:55 - 2:24:02)
Okay. Okay. Or you can get a permit to, to tap into the storm drain system.

[Speaker 15] (2:24:02 - 2:24:08)
Right. I have a quick, just one more quick question.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:08 - 2:24:24)
I'm so sorry. What happens if you have a yard and the yard is, is flooding quite a bit and year after year it's getting worse and worse and worse. What can people do with a situation like that?

Can they tap into?

[Speaker 15] (2:24:25 - 2:24:38)
There's drainage on the street. You can get a permit, a license excavator on a town. Okay.

And tie it into the drainage system. Prior to doing that, you have to sign a waiver now because if it ends up backing up, we're not going to be held liable. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:38 - 2:24:43)
So there is a, some type of a mechanism to help somebody with that. Okay. Right.

Okay.

[Speaker 15] (2:24:43 - 2:24:47)
But we are worried about the system being overtaxed. That's why we need to sign a waiver. Yeah.

I just have a quick question.

[Speaker 8] (2:24:49 - 2:25:07)
So, so Liz, just, just real quick I know, you know, we had, we had chatted and you had mentioned the need for potentially a warrant article or, or two at annual town meeting. Is that something, is that something that you're, that you're working, you're working with?

[Speaker 3] (2:25:07 - 2:25:10)
Related to the, to the bylaws and rules and regulations.

[Speaker 8] (2:25:10 - 2:25:18)
So you anticipate that through work with KP law, we'll have, we could have something, you know, later this, later this winter. So we could.

[Speaker 3] (2:25:19 - 2:25:28)
Yeah. I don't, I, I have to actually investigate with the timeframe. I would say probably by beginning of February, we would have something ready.

[Speaker 8] (2:25:29 - 2:25:43)
Okay. I just wanted to make sure that, that, that, that was, that was shared amongst, amongst us and the public. And that way we could, we could make sure that we move mountains to accommodate that request to include it on the annual town meeting warrant.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:43 - 2:25:45)
Okay. That is very transparent. Katie.

[Speaker 6] (2:25:47 - 2:26:19)
One comment or question I had regarding the bylaws. I assume, correct me if I'm wrong, we are looking into, I think this has brought up, been brought up multiple times about laterals, about having like, if you, the sale of your home would require a lateral inspection and then that inspection would allow for a pass or a fail and you wouldn't be able to trade your home unless you've passed so that we were not perpetuating issues. Right.

[Speaker 14] (2:26:19 - 2:26:20)
Long, longer than necessary.

[Speaker 3] (2:26:20 - 2:27:00)
So we're looking at that as part of a comprehensive view of the, of the laterals in, in addition to, you know, if it's a hardship for someone, like how do we help them? Yeah. Is it fair that we fixed, you know, 10, 15% of the laterals in town, but not the others?

And can we explain that and rationalize it? So we, we don't want to, and, you know, we want to make sure that people know that homeowners, property owners own the laterals up to this, up to the sewer main, which is typically in the middle of the street, not always, but almost always. So we want to, when we, we don't want to piecemeal information out.

[Speaker 6] (2:27:01 - 2:27:13)
We want to have a comprehensive view. There's a piece of education to the homeowner alongside potentially a recommendation for whatever happens going forward.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:13 - 2:27:24)
Well, are you talking about, are you talking about in the, someone goes to sell their house, you need to have a certification that your house, that your lateral is satisfactory?

[Speaker 9] (2:27:25 - 2:27:25)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:26 - 2:27:38)
Right. So just so you know, I do know that Andrea Mori had sent a, some work in on, on those bylaws from other communities.

[Speaker 3] (2:27:38 - 2:27:39)
Yeah, we have that.

[Speaker 1] (2:27:39 - 2:27:39)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (2:27:40 - 2:27:53)
We're pulling together information. It's, you know, it's a good thing to have. It's important, but it's a very, very slow process to address your lateral issues.

So we don't want it to be the only tool in our toolbox.

[Speaker 19] (2:27:54 - 2:27:54)
All right.

[Speaker 3] (2:27:54 - 2:28:04)
The other thing, just, I forgot to mention that the King's Beach Phase II work is in the design process. They're expecting to go out to bid, I think, beginning of January.

[Speaker 15] (2:28:04 - 2:28:06)
Probably middle of January, not with the holidays.

[Speaker 3] (2:28:06 - 2:28:14)
Okay. Yeah. So then that will commence second quarter to June-ish.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:16 - 2:28:19)
Okay. Sure. Just, it is.

[Speaker 8] (2:28:20 - 2:28:25)
I just had a quick question for Gino, just about the relining of the pipes. Yes. Is it weather dependent?

No.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:25 - 2:28:36)
You can reline the pipes any time of year? Any time of year. Okay.

Good. I have a simple one too. So the low, low interest loan program, I forget the name of it.

[Speaker 28] (2:28:36 - 2:28:36)
SRF.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:37 - 2:28:43)
SRF. We applied. Do we know what the next step in that process is?

When we might hear the next thing?

[Speaker 6] (2:28:43 - 2:28:48)
It's a really juicy situation, so I don't know if we're going to be able to talk about that right now. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (2:28:48 - 2:28:56)
We applied for $3.5 million, and off the top of my head, I forget exactly when we hear about it, but it's, I want to say January.

[Speaker 2] (2:28:56 - 2:28:57)
January, that's what I thought. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:58 - 2:28:59)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:59 - 2:29:16)
I just want to acknowledge the work that this committee has done. It's an extraordinary amount of work. I mean, the amount of hours that the entire committee has put in from its establishment is really continuing to be noted and will be noted every time.

So appreciate it.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:16 - 2:29:27)
I think at the end of the year, you probably are going to win the committee of the year award. You're definitely giving the solid waste advisory committee is now on their heels.

[Speaker 15] (2:29:28 - 2:29:40)
I guess piggyback on what you said. As most of you know, I've been a weathering assistant engineer for a significant period of time, and there's my de facto assistant engineer. It's been phenomenal.

[Speaker 6] (2:29:40 - 2:29:41)
Another hat you wear.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:41 - 2:29:52)
Don't think of the living wage. So now, let's, we're just, you know, you can change your hat, and we're just going to talk about discussion on Kings Beach proposed UV disinfecting system.

[Speaker 28] (2:29:53 - 2:29:54)
What?

[Speaker 2] (2:29:55 - 2:29:56)
There's no material on this, right?

[Speaker 1] (2:29:56 - 2:29:57)
No.

[Speaker 2] (2:29:57 - 2:29:57)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:58 - 2:30:45)
Just to recap, Mayor Nicholson met with Geno and I. It wasn't a secret meeting or anything, but it wasn't posted out there, but Geno and I met with the mayor and Jenny Armini and Brendan Creighton, and the mayor is very, very focused on trying to get a pilot set up, and he wanted to get Swampscott on board with that and form a partnership. The mayor at that meeting disclosed that he felt it was going to be $250,000 and that we could work it through our, no, in our meeting, he said $250,000.

It wasn't each in that meeting.

[Speaker 15] (2:30:46 - 2:30:50)
I think that's what it, that's the way we interpret it. It used to be 500 each.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:50 - 2:31:19)
In that meeting with us, it was only 250, so that's what, so we're going back and forth to try to understand that. So what we did after that meeting is we made it really clear to the mayor that we have a water and sewer infrastructure committee and that we were going to be giving that information over to them and let them make some type of a recommendation, and then so you and your water and sewer infrastructure committee can just give us your update after just a short amount of time that you've been trying to look at it.

[Speaker 3] (2:31:20 - 2:34:36)
So we have talked about it, but we don't have enough information right now to even make a recommendation, right? We're still waiting on, the mayor was really asking if the town, if the select board would commit to booking the so-called pilot truck for a specific period of time for next summer, but the very preliminary timeframe and timeline that Climb Powder has put together does not get us to a pilot next summer. It gets us to a pilot starting, the fast track version gets us to a pilot starting at the end of August.

So they are spending the next six weeks and about $20,000 worth of consulting that Lynn has agreed to pay to see if they can fast, super fast track the plan and get it so that it can be in the summer because the mayor was also very specific that he wants it to be at a time when we can say the beach is open and let people swim and not just test out the theory of does UV work in our specific Stacey's Brook environment, but can we also while we're piloting, if we're going to do all that and spend all that money to pilot it, let's do it at a time when we can open the beach and let people swim, at least during dry weather because the system does not work during wet weather. So they are working to find out what the terms and conditions would be to book the truck.

It's $40,000 per month. So for three months it's $120,000 just for the pilot truck. We don't know if we book it and we miss the date because of permitting or some engineering something or other and it slides out and we say, well, no, we don't want to do the pilot in October, November, or December, so we just want to cancel the machine.

We don't know what the terms and conditions are for making that commitment. So we're waiting for that information. And we're waiting for Kleinfelder's work, which they think will take about six weeks, to come back and answer about 15 questions that we had right off the bat, such as what are the specs of the pilot unit, what kind of noise factor is there, where would it go, what kind of permitting is required in order to put it there.

They're talking about the triangle where Eastern, Humphrey, and Windshore Drive come together. That is DCR property. So what kind of permitting will we need to do?

It's in a flood zone. It's within, I think, conservation commission's 100 feet of wetlands, et cetera, et cetera. So there's a lot of questions.

And in order to fast-track, we probably can't use a general contractor. We would probably have to do the work Glenn and Swampscott in-house. We wouldn't have time to put it out to bid and wait for the bids and analyze it.

We just have to say, OK, this is what we need to do. This is how we're going to do it. Go.

That's the only way to get it done. So there's a lot of unknowns. So right now, we don't have answers to pretty much any of those questions.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:37 - 2:34:42)
And just to make sure level's set, we've done a very, very mini, mini, mini pilot, right?

[Speaker 3] (2:34:43 - 2:34:44)
No, we haven't done a pilot.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:44 - 2:34:45)
We've just done testing.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:45 - 2:34:47)
Testing. That was the mini, mini, mini.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:49 - 2:34:53)
Testing on, what, four samples and none of them are of turbulent water?

[Speaker 2] (2:34:53 - 2:34:53)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:54 - 2:34:54)
OK.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:55 - 2:34:56)
Right. That was my point.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:56 - 2:34:56)
OK.

[Speaker 2] (2:34:57 - 2:35:01)
But I understand this has never really been done for this purpose before.

[Speaker 3] (2:35:04 - 2:35:23)
I don't know. Newport, Rhode Island, has done something similar. The DEP said that they didn't think it was a good example because it didn't really open their beach any more than it was opened before.

I know that some people went down and looked at it. I think Gina was on that team. But I personally haven't seen it.

So I don't know.

[Speaker 15] (2:35:25 - 2:35:29)
Isn't there a thing like this has been used more for sewer? It hasn't.

[Speaker 28] (2:35:29 - 2:35:30)
Wastewater.

[Speaker 15] (2:35:30 - 2:35:40)
That's stormwater. Right. The only place we know is, as Liz was saying, Sean and I took a trip down there with a client builder, Newport, Rhode Island, and that was stormwater.

Stormwater.

[Speaker 28] (2:35:40 - 2:35:40)
Yep.

[Speaker 15] (2:35:41 - 2:35:47)
On a significant scale. On a significant scale. Yep.

But, as Liz just said, the results were mixed.

[Speaker 3] (2:35:48 - 2:36:00)
But I also don't think it was, it's not like a Stacey Brook type of big flow of water system. It was more of a bring it in, treat it, and then let it flow out, like contain it, treat it.

[Speaker 28] (2:36:00 - 2:36:01)
That's my understanding.

[Speaker 15] (2:36:01 - 2:36:08)
It was. It was almost like there was a detention pond behind the unit. The water filtered into there, they treated it, and sent it back out into the ocean.

More controlled.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:09 - 2:37:08)
Mm-hmm. Yep. The other issue that I'm going to just keep bringing up is, if there is an issue is, if this all works and it's really great, there is an issue as to where to put a facility.

And we have. We just spoke about an incredibly dense neighborhood, and Kleinfelder has really, in my opinion, not significantly identified whether or not that space is relevant for the project, or whether it will even work, what the impact is to the neighborhood, and they haven't even given multiple different places. So I think that's a real serious problem that needs to be discussed.

And any time I have brought it up, the answer that I'm given is, we will figure it out. And I don't want to see hundreds of thousands of dollars spent, and then later we're trying to figure something out on the backs of people in that neighborhood.

[Speaker 3] (2:37:08 - 2:37:25)
Well, that triangle is only for the pilot. I think I could go out on a limb here and say, it would not be a permanent location. And there is no good permanent location, just ready and waiting.

So that does, that is a big unanswered question.

[Speaker 15] (2:37:26 - 2:37:39)
Yeah, the location I think you're referring to that has been discussed is 3 New Ocean. Right. And you're squeezing, you're using every square foot of that lot to put that facility in, and then when you have trucks coming in, they'd have to park out on New Ocean Street.

[Speaker 8] (2:37:41 - 2:37:52)
Are we still also running tests or design on an outfall extension? Are we still looking at that? Or that's just the table at this time?

[Speaker 1] (2:37:52 - 2:37:56)
Table. So the only thing we're talking about right now is the request.

[Speaker 8] (2:37:56 - 2:37:56)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:57 - 2:38:16)
But your point on what we're looking for, the outsource, because we have to remember is our town administrator is very pro outsource, the outfall. And, you know, I think we've heard enough about the pros of outfall that, you know, so from the steering committee, we're still very pro.

[Speaker 15] (2:38:16 - 2:38:18)
We haven't taken that off the table.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:18 - 2:38:21)
Okay. Right. We just aren't, haven't.

[Speaker 15] (2:38:21 - 2:38:24)
Nor have we taken ozone off the table. That's the third alternative.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:25 - 2:38:25)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (2:38:25 - 2:38:32)
Didn't we allocate funding to move all three of those forward some beginning way?

[Speaker 1] (2:38:33 - 2:38:37)
Yes. The UV is the first piece of that.

[Speaker 3] (2:38:39 - 2:38:44)
And we're just pushing it right now. But some of that has already been expended.

[Speaker 28] (2:38:44 - 2:38:45)
Sorry?

[Speaker 3] (2:38:45 - 2:39:03)
Some of it's been expended. It's been expended. Some of the $200,000 that you already allocated has been spent.

$75,000 of it went to the BAA and the UV mini, mini, mini pilot you were talking about, the bench testing, and also the report, the original report. So.

[Speaker 1] (2:39:05 - 2:39:13)
Okay. So we're, thank you, Liz, for your hard work. And thank you, Gino, for jumping in there.

[Speaker 2] (2:39:15 - 2:39:19)
So what is, like, when do we need to make a decision by?

[Speaker 1] (2:39:20 - 2:39:31)
We don't have the information. So once we have. Oh, the six weeks.

Well, once Liz comes back with information, then we'll discuss it again. But there's nothing more we can do.

[Speaker 3] (2:39:31 - 2:39:53)
I mean, if they come back tomorrow and say, oh, if you book this, you know, if you commit to the pilot truck, but if the whole thing slides, you can get out of it with, you know, for $0, then, you know, that's one discussion. If they say something else, then it's a different discussion. And then we won't have any of the other information for at least six weeks, I would say.

[Speaker 8] (2:39:54 - 2:40:08)
Yeah. And just in my opinion, we should be running this test in the summer. So we should be doing this Memorial Day and Labor Day.

That makes absolute sense. It does not make sense for us to fund this test at the middle of August, end of August, September.

[Speaker 15] (2:40:09 - 2:40:10)
Let's do it during each season.

[Speaker 3] (2:40:11 - 2:40:11)
Yeah.

[Speaker 15] (2:40:12 - 2:40:21)
Agreed. Yeah, I don't want to speak for the mayor, but that's why we're exploring the UV with the hope that we did get the beaches open. Yeah.

June, July, and August. Yep.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:21 - 2:40:49)
Okay. Okay. Thank you, Liz.

Sure. All right. So moving on real quick.

We're moving on to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or AFSCME, Council 93, Local 2610, Administrative Professionals. We've already seen this. And so if we're good, can we have a motion to approve?

Motion. Second, Katie? Second.

All in favor?

[Speaker 28] (2:40:49 - 2:40:50)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:51 - 2:40:57)
All right. The men know how to second also. You're a designated driver.

[Speaker 6] (2:40:57 - 2:40:58)
I guess I am.

[Speaker 9] (2:40:58 - 2:40:59)
Designated second.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:59 - 2:41:18)
Diane told me that. Always the bride will get married a bride. So now we'll just go.

You know what? We don't really. Do we need an update on the ARPA funds right this second?

I'm just going to constantly keep it on there. Oh, did you want to talk about resiliency on that? All right.

So let's just. Yeah. Now Martha left.

[Speaker 28] (2:41:18 - 2:41:18)
She left.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:19 - 2:41:20)
I don't know if she happens to be online.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:21 - 2:41:25)
Or do you want me to just want me to pop it on for the next meeting? It's your fault.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:25 - 2:41:30)
No. Okay. Unfortunately, timing is of the essence.

All right.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:31 - 2:41:36)
All right. So let's go to the update on the ARPA funds.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:38 - 2:41:52)
Okay. I don't know if there's any other besides Liz. Can't leave yet.

If Martha happens to be online or Jackson or Ryan.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:55 - 2:41:57)
So is that the group that you have?

[Speaker 2] (2:41:57 - 2:41:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:57 - 2:41:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:41:58 - 2:42:35)
So we were hoping that people could be here tonight. So quick refresher. We went through this process over the last six months.

We applied for MVP. We applied for CZM. Didn't win either of those.

Had, you know, comprehensive proposals that you all, you know, have a kind of an outline in front of you. Not that one. You don't have in front of you.

I don't know if you have from last time, but we had this summary.

[Speaker 9] (2:42:37 - 2:42:37)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:42:37 - 2:45:22)
Okay. So after last time it got together with chair, chair Smith here and chair Schmidt from climate action, resiliency and chair of Harbor and water. And we went back through this proposal to kind of try to get to the meat of it, the essence of it, to keep it within roughly a $200,000 scope.

And what we like to recommend is that as you may recall, there was a 30,000 for project administration. We'll come back to that. There's a community engagement piece here, which made sense in the big, big scheme of things because it was really taking it from soup to nuts, like the whole process.

We believe that if we zero in on more like the analytic piece of this up front, that there's really nothing reasonable, that the community needs to weigh in yet until we have the right information to present. So we can greatly diminish the community engagement process at this point. And that would come at a second phase.

Once we have the information that are about to go through. So we definitely need this coastal vulnerability analysis. It basically updates as a refresher, everything we did in 2016 with all the latest flood models, et cetera, et cetera.

That was $38,000, call it $40,000. We definitely need the Fisherman's Beach alternatives analysis. The way they categorize it here, that's $36,000.

That's kind of like layer one really, and they're kind of evaluating alternatives. Layer two is what they call Fisherman's Beach neighborhood flood protection approach that really gets to really costing out, you know, you basically kind of, it's a funnel. There's like 14 different solutions.

You like funnel them down to maybe eight in this first phase. And then you, you really go to town, really modeling out and costing out the last eight. That's what's the 85.

And we do believe that one of the optional add on services is very, very critical. That's the rainfall based flood model. That's another 35.

So what you get to here is about 200,000. And then the project admin, there'll probably be some project admin on that. It won't be the full 30,000.

Let's call it maybe 15,000, very roughly. Again, we're gonna have to put this out to bid. So we're just using these numbers as kind of a guide right now in terms of scope that fits all in your budget.

This is all in the budget. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:45:22 - 2:45:26)
So was Ryan Hale part of these conversations?

[Speaker 2] (2:45:26 - 2:47:09)
Ryan Hale could not make it the time we met this weekend, but we've received input from him by email. And I think one of the concerns, if I can try to reflect it as accurately as possible, is that there's a desire to make sure that this is an open procurement and that we get different bids and different approaches to this type of scope, I think is one of the most critical pieces to this. There is definitely some, we got some feedback from coastal zone management yesterday on the proposal we put in.

And, you know, as we understand it, we've always understood it. One of the 14 different options here is a living reef. And there is definitely a great deal of debate amongst parties here, whether or not that should even be on the table as an option and how much resource we should commit to that, because there's definitely kind of a high hurdle to that becoming reality.

It's my opinion that it should be on the list and should get that initial layer of review within this $38,000 of this, sorry, within the $36,000, the first level of analysis. I would not be surprised if it drops off at that point in this process and doesn't kind of make it to the final cut, but I don't want to say, this was the whole point of this is that different people have different ways that they weight that. And I don't, with all due respect to all of us, I don't think any of us are the experts on this and that's the whole point of doing this process.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:10 - 2:47:18)
But did the people from CZM, did, are they, are they making recommendations as to where we should be spending?

[Speaker 2] (2:47:18 - 2:47:40)
No, they didn't say what they did say. And I'll add, I think the most important CZM is about, we need to get to a point where we know what project we want to build. And the problem we keep hitting with all these things is we want to do this big study to figure out which project, and they don't want to fund that.

They want to, they want to know that you know what you're doing and we can build a project.

[Speaker 1] (2:47:40 - 2:47:47)
But the question is, are they saying, are there projects that they're saying, you know what, we're not, we're not going to, we're not funding this or.

[Speaker 3] (2:47:47 - 2:49:21)
So I specifically asked them about the Living Reef because it does keep turning around. And what they told us was it is a wave mitigation effort. It does not stop a surge of seawater coming at you and flooding, you know, flooding Puritan Road.

So that is why they tend to say it's not a flood mitigation strategy. It's more of a, you know, it calms the waves. And because of the eelgrass situation, they feel like it's probably not the best solution for that area.

But what they said was, because I said, you know, we're, we're talking about doing the analysis that we had put in our request for a grant from you. So funding that so that we can be ready next year with a specific project. Does that make sense?

And they said, absolutely. Two things, they will help us along the way. We can talk to them about what we're learning before the grant applications are due and they will give us guidance.

They also said the most important thing for us is the really rigorous alternatives analysis. Why did you choose this over this? Don't just tell us you think a Living Reef, you know, is a good idea, or you think you should raise your seawall.

Prove to us analytically why that's the right choice for you at this time, as part of your, your plan going forward. So to me using the money in this way, after all, those conversation makes the most sense.

[Speaker 6] (2:49:22 - 2:49:34)
Okay. That's a lot. That's really good insight.

I think basically what they're trying to say is show us that this isn't a want, it's a need. And the way you do that is to justify it by removing other alternatives, saying why those things don't work.

[Speaker 1] (2:49:35 - 2:49:44)
So if you take all these things, will you be able to immediately get contracts ready? Because I think Amy, are you, are you AS on that screen there? Okay.

[Speaker 9] (2:49:46 - 2:49:48)
Oh, does he hold on Amy?

[Speaker 1] (2:49:49 - 2:49:54)
Ryan, Ryan, did you leave us? Did he have his hand up? He did.

[Speaker 6] (2:49:55 - 2:49:58)
And then he stopped because he heard something.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:03 - 2:50:10)
Call me if you want. Only if you want to. All right.

So, so yes, right.

[Speaker 2] (2:50:10 - 2:50:21)
That's why at times of the essence, because basically now we need to turn this into actually a procurement, get it out there two weeks, get bids back, evaluate them, get to a contract by 1231.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:21 - 2:50:24)
Okay. And Amy, that works within the time schedule, right?

[Speaker 6] (2:50:30 - 2:50:34)
Say it again a little softer. Oh, Doug's got it down.

[Speaker 28] (2:50:34 - 2:50:35)
I know it was hard to believe.

[Speaker 6] (2:50:35 - 2:50:39)
Not that I disbelieved her, it just sounded muffled.

[Speaker 1] (2:50:40 - 2:50:47)
Okay. All right. So we don't need to take any action on this.

Okay. We're good. All right.

Well, that's very helpful.

[Speaker 15] (2:50:49 - 2:51:02)
One other thing we took out of that meeting from CZM, he said they funded $5 million worth of projects and there were 40 applicants totaling $24 million. So only 20% of the projects got passed.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:04 - 2:51:06)
Well, we need to be in there next time.

[Speaker 8] (2:51:06 - 2:51:16)
And, and Gino or Liz, do we have an idea of whether storm surge and storm surges is causing flooding or the wave action is, is causing the flooding or are they one in the same?

[Speaker 3] (2:51:16 - 2:51:27)
I think it's more of the surge. It's the combination of the surge coming up and the storm water coming down. And that's why, that's why I think we need to do both.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:28 - 2:51:31)
Storm water coming down from the rain precipitation.

[Speaker 9] (2:51:34 - 2:51:37)
Does that make sense? You look like his hand doesn't make sense.

[Speaker 1] (2:51:38 - 2:51:50)
I've been there and then the rain's not doing anything. It's the waves. It's the surge.

Ryan, are you back? We're not leaving.

[Speaker 28] (2:51:51 - 2:51:52)
I think so. Can you guys hear me?

[Speaker 1] (2:51:52 - 2:52:06)
Yeah, we can hear you. Shoot. Ryan?

Can you hear me now? Yeah, we can still hear you.

[Speaker 23] (2:52:07 - 2:53:41)
Great. So I just wanted to clarify the role of CZM in our plans as a town. So I'd like to hear from Doug or from anyone whether the relationships we have with CZM or with Kleinfelder or anybody are exclusive.

Because what I understand is that the coastal zone management organization in Massachusetts is a source of knowledge and guidance for us and a source of funding. But it is not the only partner we can have in developing a plan and implementing a strategy to make our community more resilient towards the effects of sea level rise and more intense storms and all the stuff that's coming in the future. So I want to make sure that we're aware as a community that there are lots of other partners out there.

There are lots of funding sources out there. There are a lot of vendors who will want to sell us services and concrete and other solutions. And I just want to make sure that we are not restricting our options and sort of hitching our wagon to CZM or to Kleinfelder too tightly.

[Speaker 2] (2:53:43 - 2:54:47)
Absolutely not. We're happy to take the best bid, of course. And we are happy to get money from anybody that wants to give it to us.

You know, I think the natural gravitation is towards CZM is one of the biggest sources for these big types of coastal projects. But, you know, ideally, as we've talked about before, we'll actually get a resiliency and climate manager position to reinforce the efforts that MARSI can put forward so that we are scouring high and low for every possible opportunity. But in any case, having this base understanding of what our options are will put us in a much better position to know which grant to go after because we're going after nature-based solutions purely or maybe one grant's for that, another one's where we might need to increase seawalls, or, you know, whatever it is.

But first, we need to know what we're going after.

[Speaker 1] (2:54:49 - 2:54:49)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:54:49 - 2:55:38)
I have a follow-up to Erin's question. Okay. Doug, you can probably answer this, but if you can't, maybe just come back with it.

If we, when we hopefully go through with all of this and get a recommendation as to how to proceed in our grant writing going forward, if we are going in multiple directions, generally when we write grants, we're not precluded from multiple fund sources or, like, it's not just one pot that everybody takes from, and so if we get one, we don't get another. It's if we've determined that five areas are of interest and these are the reasons why, we should be stretching our net as far as possible so that maybe we could possibly do three or four of those five interests.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:38 - 2:55:39)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 6] (2:55:39 - 2:55:54)
Okay, so there's no reason to say that if we take the advocacy and help of CCM to get to a point, that once we get to that point, we then branch out into other pools of funding and with other partners.

[Speaker 2] (2:55:55 - 2:55:55)
Totally.

[Speaker 1] (2:55:56 - 2:55:58)
Okay. So, we're all set?

[Speaker 2] (2:55:59 - 2:56:00)
I do have one other ARPA thing.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:01 - 2:56:02)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2] (2:56:03 - 2:56:06)
Sorry. It's a relatively significant one.

[Speaker 1] (2:56:07 - 2:56:07)
Oh, wow.

[Speaker 2] (2:56:07 - 2:58:53)
Yeah. Okay. So, I'd like to just introduce this tonight.

It's not something that we have to decide on, but as I was kind of reflecting on what we have funded through ARPA, you know, as, like, a really quick summary, right? Way back when, there were funds put towards staff, right during the pandemic. Then we committed 1.7 or so for veterans housing, and then we went through another 1.5 for fishermen, and then a whole list of other kind of smaller projects, right? And we had a fun debate about that at that point. A couple different debates, actually. But what I realized when I was kind of looking back over the point of ARPA is that one thing we really didn't do is address directly the negative economic impact that the pandemic had and inflation had, particularly on lower-income people here in Swampscott.

And there is a very clear provision that the first purpose under ARPA is to kind of address the negative economic impacts that people experience. And municipalities, states, whatever, can make direct cash payments to people based on different criteria that you can set. You know, it could be under the poverty line.

It could be, you know, however you want to set it, basically. So I'd like us to consider utilizing some of the funds, either that are not going to get used, and we probably should talk about some of them that are looking that way, and some of the funds right now that we have dedicated to fishermen, not to change the overall amount that would be spent on fishermen's repair, because we would supplement that with more of the low-income loan funding, but that we would take a considerable amount, I'll propose $750,000 total, of the ARPA funding and distribute that, for example, $750 to 1,000 households here in Swampscott who have experienced the most significant impact from inflation.

[Speaker 6] (2:58:58 - 2:59:10)
That's a lot to digest there, Doug, but as you've thought about it the most, what sort of, how do you... Criteria. Criteria, yeah, what's the criteria for determining financial impact because of inflation?

[Speaker 2] (2:59:10 - 2:59:51)
Yeah, well, ultimately we can decide, and that others have chosen different benchmarks for that. You can choose the poverty line. You can choose the 30% AMI level that we talked about with housing.

You can choose 60% AMI. Obviously, you're adding more and more households depending on what the criteria are there. I don't believe, as far as I've understood it, that there is any direction that you must choose one of these kind of established federal benchmarks, but that's something that obviously we could look into more.

[Speaker 6] (2:59:53 - 2:59:55)
How about the IDS?

[Speaker 8] (2:59:55 - 3:00:00)
No, I was just curious if you see this as a direct payment?

[Speaker 16] (3:00:00 - 3:00:01)
No. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:00:02 - 3:00:16)
That's, as I'm proposing it, maybe there's some other way to do it, but that's clearly in the regulations, and it seems as though that would be the simplest way to go about it, but I'm flexible about it.

[Speaker 1] (3:00:17 - 3:00:47)
I'll be honest. We've known about that since day one, and here we are, November 20th. We've got to get everything squared up by 1231, and as great as that seems, I feel like we've already done our work, and that's pretty tough.

Has this been done in other towns? Massachusetts?

[Speaker 2] (3:00:48 - 3:00:49)
I don't know about Massachusetts.

[Speaker 6] (3:00:50 - 3:00:51)
Do you know about it anywhere?

[Speaker 2] (3:00:54 - 3:00:58)
I'd have to figure out where the example was that I started this thought on.

[Speaker 6] (3:00:58 - 3:01:12)
Well, we do have a precedent for redirecting our book funds, so if there's money not spent, I think it's worth understanding. I don't think that's what he's... Well, first he said, let's look at money not spent.

[Speaker 2] (3:01:12 - 3:01:14)
It's a and, but yes.

[Speaker 6] (3:01:15 - 3:01:18)
But I'm saying, let's look at that dollar amount first.

[Speaker 9] (3:01:18 - 3:01:20)
We have to look at where exactly it would come from, right?

[Speaker 6] (3:01:21 - 3:01:38)
Yeah, if it's not being spent, and it can't be spent, then I don't want to leave money on the table, so let's see what that number is, and then I'd also like to understand if from any of the proposed criteria, like how many families are we talking about?

[Speaker 9] (3:01:39 - 3:01:41)
What if we end up with 1,500 families?

[Speaker 6] (3:01:41 - 3:01:42)
How do we decide that?

[Speaker 9] (3:01:42 - 3:01:43)
How is anyone getting it?

[Speaker 28] (3:01:44 - 3:01:45)
Well, that's why we set the criteria.

[Speaker 9] (3:01:46 - 3:01:47)
Right, so I don't even know if that's...

[Speaker 6] (3:01:47 - 3:02:15)
Based on the 2021 tax returns, or how do you... based on the criteria. So I was definitely interested in understanding more.

And then if that's from Jeannie, if it's even feasible. Say we decide, yes, we're going to do it, and we're going to give whatever, 1,000 families, this is the criteria. How then that actually comes to fruition before, or we just have to say we're going to do it before December 3rd?

[Speaker 9] (3:02:15 - 3:02:19)
Amy, do you have any thoughts here? You have your hand up, right? She does.

[Speaker 6] (3:02:19 - 3:02:19)
Yeah.

[Speaker 12] (3:02:19 - 3:02:21)
Am I at a reasonable volume right now?

[Speaker 6] (3:02:21 - 3:02:23)
You are. Yes. Okay.

[Speaker 12] (3:02:24 - 3:03:24)
There are some communities in Massachusetts that have done this. One community did it as a blanket that gave the entire graduating class after COVID. You do need to prove that you were piggybacked off.

[Speaker 6] (3:03:36 - 3:03:42)
And then Amy, the timing piece of it, it would just be that we would commit it by the end of the year. It doesn't have to get paid by the end of the year, right?

[Speaker 12] (3:03:43 - 3:03:46)
It doesn't have to get paid by the end of the year. I do have the...

[Speaker 6] (3:03:59 - 3:04:15)
I guess, too, the other question that just came to mind is if we have to identify the 1,000 people before, and that's part of what the commitment is, or if we just say this is our commitment up to this dollar amount, and we commit to do that, and then that's what we have the space to do post the end of the year.

[Speaker 12] (3:04:16 - 3:04:20)
I do not believe we would have to have the persons or the families identified.

[Speaker 9] (3:04:30 - 3:04:39)
Amy, did any of these towns ever do just every resident gets X? Or is it... No.

No, okay. There's a qualifier.

[Speaker 12] (3:04:40 - 3:04:49)
Yeah, there has to be a qualifier tied to the CDC. Both of them. And most of the ones that did it did it the first year.

[Speaker 9] (3:04:49 - 3:04:53)
Right. Right. Like 2021 or 20...

[Speaker 12] (3:04:53 - 3:05:00)
Yeah, the first year of the park, but it was what they did it. So, I don't know any community that's giving direct tax assistance at this point.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:01 - 3:05:12)
Right. Right. That's, yeah.

Okay. Interesting. So, can we now move to discussion and possible vote to open the board for special time meeting?

[Speaker 28] (3:05:13 - 3:05:14)
So moved.

[Speaker 6] (3:05:15 - 3:05:16)
Second, because that's my job.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:16 - 3:05:17)
All in favor?

[Speaker 28] (3:05:17 - 3:05:18)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:18 - 3:05:33)
Aye. Aye. All right, so now let's review the town meeting warrant, including review discussion and votes on articles for inclusion and warrant.

Is Doug, is your article in here? Yes. Okay, did it make it in there?

It's not in the line. All right, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:33 - 3:05:34)
Let's not call it Doug's article.

[Speaker 1] (3:05:36 - 3:05:59)
Okay. So, let's just start with... Start with article one.

Do we have any questions Amy want to walk us through article one these are the bills through bills List seems a little larger than last time.

[Speaker 12] (3:06:01 - 3:06:34)
Yeah No Yeah, we do have some additional bills that were added That were brought to our attention. So because we have them in hand we wanted to get them on the warrant The largest one that you have on there for the insurance we were going back and forth with the broker because We had hate then after

[Speaker 1] (3:06:56 - 3:07:12)
What else was added here because there wasn't this much what Beach Pass fulfillment from 6 11 2024 or maybe the it came in too late Don't you write don't we have purchase orders that we're setting aside

[Speaker 12] (3:07:13 - 3:07:25)
We do these were either above and beyond the purchase orders that existed or we were Pulled by the department head

[Speaker 9] (3:07:38 - 3:07:39)
Okay

[Speaker 1] (3:07:40 - 3:07:51)
And we're good. We don't have any legal bills in here, right? We do Yeah, I've attacked this was advertisements Okay.

All right.

[Speaker 17] (3:07:51 - 3:08:20)
So that's article one article to Just to remind you in the draft of the warrant you have each article we have to identify tonight Who is sponsoring the article? Either usually the town administrator or the select board for all these articles. So as you go through you can just tell me Which do you want to list?

I will add that into the document tonight while we're going through it.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:20 - 3:08:41)
Is it? Yeah Go ahead. Okay, so it's I think we started we started getting a little bit more focused on select board in the last warrant Yeah So it would be But the Finance Committee is the one that's reporting on all this Correct.

[Speaker 17] (3:08:41 - 3:08:48)
Yeah And that's listed at the bottom Okay Quick question.

[Speaker 8] (3:08:48 - 3:09:01)
Have any of these articles been discussed with the moderator? I know we're opening and closing tonight Not yet. Not yet.

Okay, so just so we will discuss with the moderator and then we will schedule information sessions for town meeting members

[Speaker 1] (3:09:04 - 3:09:27)
Article to amended appropriation of fiscal year 205 operating budget collective bargaining agreements That's the one that we just voted on So it's coming out of town I

[Speaker 17] (3:09:34 - 3:09:50)
Wrote in the draft in front of you It says on every article of a select board will report on the article at town meeting If for any of these articles you want to recommend favorable action tonight to have that printed in the warrant, please do so Otherwise, it's gonna say it's like what we'll report at town meeting.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:50 - 3:09:58)
So I would be good with I got caught in this before has Finance Committee though.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:58 - 3:10:03)
Wait in and out first All right. Yeah, so we'll wait for the Finance Committee

[Speaker 28] (3:10:05 - 3:10:05)
Okay

[Speaker 1] (3:10:09 - 3:10:18)
Well, they might be I think they're meeting tomorrow so they might be able to Right, okay, so we'll report it to me

[Speaker 2] (3:10:20 - 3:10:25)
So for the first two it's sponsored by select board, right, okay, okay number three

[Speaker 1] (3:10:26 - 3:10:36)
approved transfer free cash homeless foster care transportation this is This is the school money that falls down and comes to us later on

[Speaker 12] (3:10:38 - 3:10:49)
Yeah, and we did check with Department of Revenue and Duffey Automatically given to the school, right?

[Speaker 1] (3:10:49 - 3:11:32)
Okay So that's a slip one All right article for final settlement Oh Okay, so article four is the final settlement for eminent domain And we need to speak to the Finance Committee on How we're on this amount right and where we're gonna take this amount from Yeah, it's not even amounts not even I Do we have a final amount?

[Speaker 17] (3:11:34 - 3:11:46)
Patrick Amy I do not have the final amount Offhand Amy, do you have it?

[Speaker 12] (3:11:46 - 3:11:49)
I do not so that's why we left you some of the money

[Speaker 8] (3:11:52 - 3:11:59)
And Amy are we are we bonding this or is this a two-thirds vote or is this a simple majority 50% plus one

[Speaker 1] (3:12:07 - 3:12:29)
Yeah, I know the conversation I had with Sean was to take this from free cash You know, let's hear what the Finance Committee has to say because the other the other issue we have is Now we have the approval of transfer of free cash for adjustments to tax rates

[Speaker 2] (3:12:31 - 3:13:28)
Okay, but just So, can we close the warrant without an amount in here Okay, and We're talking about taking this from free cash temporarily, but the Point was that there were other funds coming in Eventually that will fall to free cash that will actually kind of replenish that.

This is really a cash flow issue Right However, if the Finance Committee makes a recommendation to not do that, that's another opinion on it Okay, has the Finance Committee been educated about the select board's?

[Speaker 1] (3:13:29 - 3:14:11)
vote in this regard Think the chair was it was educated after we had made that vote. So I have talked to him a couple times but I Will give him a call in the morning All right, so Okay, so now approved transfer of free cash adjustments to tax rates This again, we're looking for the recommendation of the Finance Committee Amy do you have what is your free cash projection?

[Speaker 12] (3:14:12 - 3:15:21)
I Mean You do have over a million available to stay with above the threshold And our issue continues to be keeping the tax rate within Within the promised amount with the new school. Mm-hmm Mm-hmm Yeah, Patrick and I had a discussion this morning on the preliminary modeling of the tax rates But we can start modeling keep with the intention of the new school So say that back again one. So we got or certified at three point nine when you're certified at three point nine eight and We back out article One and then the foster care article and that leaves us over one and a half million to stay within our threshold For the reserve position.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:21 - 3:15:23)
You say one and a half million.

[Speaker 12] (3:15:23 - 3:15:34)
Yeah No, but they one and a half available to stay above the threshold So not actual cash balance, but it'll stay within that three to five percent recommended.

[Speaker 1] (3:15:35 - 3:15:38)
What about the other thresholds that we have in?

[Speaker 12] (3:15:39 - 3:16:10)
Capital stabilization So with General stabilization fund we want to stay between nine and ten percent. We're at nine point zero five right now so there's about 39,000 that could be used and Then capital stabilization. We're at one point four six, which is two point zero two We want to be between two and four percent So A little less than 20,000 there that could be used

[Speaker 2] (3:16:12 - 3:16:29)
But you're saying that with the free cash There's basically one and a half million that can be used to Offset the tax rates in line with the desire to keep them stable with the new school debt financing

[Speaker 12] (3:16:29 - 3:16:37)
Yes, we won't need to use that much to Stabilize this year based on our preliminary look at the tax rates this morning

[Speaker 6] (3:16:43 - 3:16:44)
Yes

[Speaker 12] (3:16:45 - 3:16:53)
stick with the hitting the taxpayers

[Speaker 8] (3:16:54 - 3:16:56)
So what so what is that amount?

[Speaker 1] (3:16:57 - 3:17:23)
That is what we are still modeling Got it You know, it's not the whole 1.5 Patrick with the money from the school the excess money that has to float to the That's the float to the bond When does that actually have to be moved over you say it was March?

[Speaker 17] (3:17:26 - 3:17:56)
We Have a note outstanding on the construction that's maturing in March, so When that comes due we'll use any excess MSBA monies on hand partially pay that down and then any of the Inflation Reduction Act monies that are received by the maturity date of the note will be put towards that as well And that's that'll end up having a significant.

[Speaker 1] (3:17:56 - 3:18:03)
Well, not much of a significant impact, but an impact on our capital How much room we have in there?

[Speaker 17] (3:18:04 - 3:18:35)
Yeah, my my hope My hope is that it would pay off the note Completely so that we wouldn't have to issue any more permanent debt for the school beyond the initial bond We did in 2022, which is great We may even have Surplus monies, which would get reserved and be used Proportionately every year that that bond has outstanding to reduce the debt service on the project That's how the state wants us has regulated us to use that inflation reduction act money.

[Speaker 1] (3:18:35 - 3:19:08)
So We'll stay posted for when that actually comes in because I haven't seen it yet, but I know they're working on it Okay So we've got to All right, so we'll work with the Finance Committee on that so article 6 appropriation for capital projects The first one on here the auditorium this is The 451 now do we have to put out the fourth the full 451 957 and then we get a credit back? Or how does this work?

[Speaker 17] (3:19:10 - 3:19:37)
the motion language is most likely going to read that you're Authorizing borrowing for the full amount of the project and then what will happen will be we will only end up borrowing the 252 Assuming we receive the incentive. That's how we typically Appropriate for the projects when we're receiving a you know, a reimbursable and grant we don't necessarily get the incentive up front It's a cash flow

[Speaker 1] (3:19:39 - 3:20:03)
And on the second one with the design of the senior center rooftop HVAC I think we need to have a pretty serious conversation about about this because a fifty thousand dollar design is going to leave us where versus a $50,000 repair how long will that take us out take us to so? Capital is gonna get him is Ryan still on here.

[Speaker 17] (3:20:03 - 3:20:30)
No Capital has got to get involved in that and I Don't has capital even Has max talked to capital on this yet This has not been discussed with the CIC they have a meeting scheduled and I want to say like 10 days or Two weeks. They're gonna have a meeting. So I'll be sure to bring this before them and get you know their recommendation

[Speaker 2] (3:20:32 - 3:20:34)
okay, so we should put it on here and then

[Speaker 28] (3:20:35 - 3:20:35)
Yeah

[Speaker 1] (3:20:35 - 3:21:10)
Yeah, so I had a conversation with Max about this and what is a section of the air conditioning failed at the Senior Center and He was able to you know, get it up and going but said that the senior center is very vulnerable to it failing again and that could do a design for the Entire space or just turn around and fix it. It sounded like doing the design for the entire space there are some long-term benefits, but Also, if we just spent the 50,000 to fix it it would get us X amount of years fixed So they've got a way in on that.

[Speaker 2] (3:21:10 - 3:21:21)
Do you want to Change it to just say senior center rooftop HVAC unit and not design of I Mean, I don't know how much Yeah, a little flexibility.

[Speaker 1] (3:21:21 - 3:21:28)
I don't know what they need if it's gonna be bonded But they can we can change that

[Speaker 8] (3:21:32 - 3:21:35)
But I guess should we change it now or should we change it on the floor

[Speaker 1] (3:21:39 - 3:21:43)
We can amend it on the color piece of paper

[Speaker 6] (3:21:45 - 3:21:46)
Okay

[Speaker 1] (3:21:51 - 3:21:52)
So article 7

[Speaker 12] (3:22:02 - 3:22:02)
Oh

[Speaker 1] (3:22:09 - 3:22:27)
Okay, so these are just basically Articles so that they can have an alternate member and this is what the state This is what the state is telling them that they have to do in order to have an alternate voting member, correct?

[Speaker 8] (3:22:30 - 3:22:39)
Yes Is there a reason that we're pushing this through at a special town meeting instead of an annual town meeting?

[Speaker 6] (3:22:39 - 3:22:47)
Yes, because Already like constrained by the fact that they don't have this available to them now It helps them.

[Speaker 1] (3:22:48 - 3:22:59)
Okay Article 9 amend general bylaws uses of land. Yeah. Okay.

Is that you Doug?

[Speaker 2] (3:23:04 - 3:23:32)
The liaison to the historical Commission Just in the back Yeah, I only have

[Speaker 6] (3:23:43 - 3:23:44)
I

[Speaker 9] (3:23:46 - 3:23:46)
Have that

[Speaker 2] (3:23:51 - 3:27:37)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think that's all we I think oh, yes, okay, so Quickly as we discussed last time briefly You know, we continue to try to work with the landowner The Glover property Is still not responsive and So in an attempt to kind of just protect the building From further damage because there are some holes in the roof and things falling against it, etc We're trying to figure out creative ways to just take those minor steps to preserve the building and So there was an attempt to put together and there has been a lot of work between the chair of the Historical Commission and People at KP law to draft the bylaw and you know Technically in the appropriate way they went back and forth especially the last couple days to get that bylaw in place In a form that is appropriate So that's what this is about is creating that additional tool To prevent demolition by neglect of swamp Scots historically significant structures and buildings Okay, so I suggest that we continue to have this on the warrant And in the process of engaging with KP law we were informed that there is existing authority within our bylaws and The State code That gives us the power as the select board or the health director or the building commissioner But certainly including the select board to order the owner to make necessary Preservation repairs we actually already have that power frankly because this is coming up at like the 11th hour that we have this power and There are some discussions still going back and forth about whether or not this gives us an increment more authority than our existing authority and that This may take a while But it might be useful in other properties So at this very moment, I'm recommending that we keep this on the warrant it may be by the time we get to special town meeting that we can indefinitely postpone this because we're assured that there's another route and that I Would it's been requested that on our next agenda? We bring forward very specific language about a vote.

We could take to order the property owner to make the repairs And that would then sink into what's allocated for ARPA and whether or not we need it or not But that process would as I understand it we could Vote to order the repairs. The owner would have to respond in three days If they don't respond in three days, then we could proceed to court and this would be supposedly a relatively quick adjudication Of that that would force the repairs to happen Okay So when you say force the repairs to happen so the town would go make the town would then go make the repairs

[Speaker 8] (3:27:37 - 3:27:42)
Yeah And would we would the town be able to capitalize those costs and attach that as a as a tax lien?

[Speaker 2] (3:27:42 - 3:28:15)
I'm on the property that that is the piece that I believe that is correct But as a nuance that may be the distinction between these two things, which is why we're still trying to sort out that Detail there I would just like I guess I would just like to understand better as you are What power we have now how this is different from that and then?

[Speaker 6] (3:28:18 - 3:28:30)
The benefit of having both right, I don't think that's parts really clear for me right now, but not saying that that means Do anything but keep going full steam ahead, but I would like more clarity on that.

[Speaker 2] (3:28:30 - 3:28:30)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (3:28:31 - 3:28:40)
I'd like some clarity on What's the downside? For I mean I read it and I think there's no downside, but that's correct.

[Speaker 2] (3:28:40 - 3:28:57)
I agree The only downside is you've got some additional bylaw Access That we really never needed because we have all the authority we really need right now Mm-hmm, that's the only downside.

[Speaker 1] (3:28:57 - 3:29:09)
So if we do have all the authority, okay I guess the downside would be if a home was ever deemed historically significant and you were the owner of that home and you didn't want to make those repairs, that would be your downside.

[Speaker 6] (3:29:11 - 3:29:50)
No, I understand but I'm saying that is a downside that we should acknowledge That obviously we're coming from a position of where the town would like to say that we'd like to see live on in its glory or whatever's left of its glory and The opposite position is they're a landowner. It's theirs They didn't ask for it to be historically significant and they want it to Be in disrepair Okay, so very thoughtful Trying to be the balance All right, so I'm not gonna make a vote on this.

[Speaker 1] (3:29:50 - 3:31:16)
We need to go over to Go over to Capital and to FinCom and then at our next meeting we'll vote on all the articles And so now we need a vote to close the warrant To make sure I'm sent to attach the several signatures electronically Okay, so if we need a motion to close the warrant and attach our electronic signatures That's all we need All in favor? Aye Motion passes unanimously Okay now moving down The Determining who speaks and on what article we'll do that. We can do that next week It feels like we have plenty of time David, but somehow the night before we're always well Cuz we're gonna one meeting before this happens Okay, let's go on a mission so now to the consent agenda Really have Discussion and possible vote of the approval of the minutes.

[Speaker 6] (3:31:16 - 3:31:26)
We already pulled out National Grid and then the Harbor and Waterfront No, the Harbor and Waterfront and the minutes are left we pulled out

[Speaker 1] (3:31:36 - 3:31:47)
Actually, can you pull out the minutes I didn't get a chance to double-check So now we're gonna delay the minutes the next time so the only thing we have left on the consent Agenda is discussion possible on the members of the following boards

[Speaker 6] (3:31:54 - 3:32:01)
It says Ted Dooley Scott McBurney Amy linger Mike Gombale and John Ingalls

[Speaker 1] (3:32:02 - 3:32:33)
So can we have a motion to? Approve the The members for the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee Danielle motion Discussion oh, sorry discussion I Assume based on the comments this evening.

[Speaker 2] (3:32:33 - 3:32:35)
You have no further thoughts on the matter

[Speaker 9] (3:32:36 - 3:33:08)
You know Doug to put it gently We had a pretty unproductive meeting this past Wednesday the chair and myself at town hall, and I don't think we're gonna see eye-to-eye no matter what and Aside from me coming in and saying who would you like me to put I don't think I was gonna make any headway So I still feel strongly about them and I feel strongly that my suggestions are the right thing and that this board this Commission Committee, whatever you want to call it needs change So

[Speaker 8] (3:33:18 - 3:33:41)
And I'm just I'm just I'm just concerned about how we move forward. I mean we need we need there needs to be communication and collaboration Between the liaison and between the chair of the committee.

I'm not sure we have that so I'm really just curious as to how Well, I think we have to be professional and appropriate David, right So I would ask the chair to do that.

[Speaker 9] (3:33:42 - 3:34:27)
I know I will be and That's how we move forward We're not always going to get along. We're not always going to agree, but I'm not I'm not going to back down from what I think is the right thing to do Unfortunately, I think that the chair has been the chair for a little bit too long in my opinion and needs to understand that his way is not the only way and And unfortunately, you know over time you will get people that are not that flexible and Collaborative, but hopefully that we can develop that maybe maybe that's my hope that going forward we can be Professional and adults and still try to get the same Things accomplished that that we would on any other board Right

[Speaker 2] (3:34:30 - 3:34:34)
Okay, can you read the there's Amy Linger and then what were the other two come Mike

[Speaker 6] (3:34:35 - 3:34:38)
Joining I'm John Ingalls

[Speaker 9] (3:34:41 - 3:36:35)
In the first two are reappointments of existing board members one is here Ted Dooley You know and in again my point in reappointing To was not to my intent is not to throw everybody.

Oh, you know the baby out with the bathwater, right? We want to keep as many as we can, but we do need change. We We sat at that meeting in August and we clearly heard that Change needs to happen.

It's not always easy. It's not always going to be a popular thing I do feel the fishermen do deserve representation. I know that's a controversial thought Perhaps in this town perhaps it's not but you know, they do have an interest They do have concerns and I do feel like they were pretty much ignored.

I don't feel that's appropriate Could I have nominated five of them? Yes There were more than five fishermen that applied out of the 21 people that did that is not what I'm proposing to do if I were then then you might have a case to say that I Have a you know specific agenda or I'm trying to do something untowards which is what the chair has Suggested of me which I find insulting but that's for another day So no, I'm trying to balance it. I'm trying to give everybody equal representation And quite frankly, I would like to see the chair Rotated I would like to see somebody else's chair that can be a little bit more collaborative and open to new ideas and Dissenting opinion because that is how growth happens and that is what I think we need So that is just my professional opinion my observations But again, it's not an easy call.

I get that. It's not a popular call either but Nothing worthwhile is easy in my opinion

[Speaker 2] (3:36:36 - 3:36:44)
Does anyone remember There were two other people The chair talked to Al Williams and Tom

[Speaker 9] (3:36:44 - 3:38:40)
Tom Polaria and Al Williams now Al Williams I spoke to he was actually here the night that the Fisherman's Alliance showed up to speak and Al Williams said to me I'm happy with any fisherman being appointed not necessarily himself the chair spoke tonight that he preferred him because his I Don't know family was named after the something or other that that did that doesn't come into play for me That wasn't something I considered when I was deciding who could be on there Mike Gombali has been on there before he mentioned that as well. So he's got a historical perspective as well as a fisherman's perspective John Ingalls is on there and he as he mentioned he is a member of the Yacht Club as well as a fisherman So I thought that served a purpose, right? He incorrectly characterized me as saying That I think there are too many Yacht Club members on the board.

I never said that I don't feel that way Obviously, I'm putting one up that I know full well You know two actually that I know are on the Yacht Club. So yes Characterize you as well. Sure You said it So I didn't You know Tom Polaria I've had multiple back and forth with Tom Polaria.

I know him very well He approached me on the beach this summer He told me he wanted to be on the committee and also told me you know Why and how many how he knew Jackson and Jackson's son and this that the other and again that didn't come into play for me I really intended to put fishermen on This committee. That was my goal. I am completely honest about it.

I'm not making any bones about it I feel like they deserve a spot In Amy Linger, I don't know Amy Linger very well. I spoke to her Interviewed her completely need to a party to make seemed like someone that had no real interest other than wanting to help immediate you know, she attended that meeting in August with 40 other people that had concerns about how it's been running.

[Speaker 1] (3:38:40 - 3:39:42)
So I think change could be good here, but it's gonna be hard It's not gonna be easy Okay, so can we take a vote now Oh All in favor Katie Katie in favor Marion. I'm in favor David Yes Yes Okay, so that is four to one motion carries now we We move to the town Would you look do we want to have the town administrators report? Do you want to take that down?

Do you think we do it quickly?

[Speaker 15] (3:39:42 - 3:40:13)
I'm gonna do it very quickly In the interest of time, I'll do respect to the rest of the departments in town. I'd like to acknowledge the police department I'll be starting the newspaper last Sunday Brianna Nicole and Angelica formed an all-female patrol shift Historic

[Speaker 1] (3:40:13 - 3:40:49)
Just so this report is also online Okay Okay, great, so with that then can I have a motion to adjourn You know what wait one second we're just gonna do select more time and then I'm gonna put you right in there I have

[Speaker 8] (3:40:52 - 3:41:45)
Yeah, I just just just really quickly just to follow up on Gino's point I did I did notice that we had an all-female patrol staff. I thought that was No No, I didn't get pulled over Mary Ellen, but I do think it was I thought it was I thought it was awesome.

I applauded it I think it just shows how far we've come since we've left civil service I think you know two years ago We had you know, we had members of the department talking about how we needed to change hiring practices a year ago we stood here and we swore in I believe seven police officers and three three firefighters and And now we have this news I would love to get an update from our police chief and our fire chief about these hiring practices and about and just a general update On a future agenda, so I absolutely I think that would be I think that would be awesome.

[Speaker 1] (3:41:45 - 3:41:46)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 8] (3:41:46 - 3:41:47)
Awesome.

[Speaker 11] (3:41:47 - 3:47:50)
Thank you Sir All right, so First of all, I wanted to I know that his name was mentioned but VSO Mike Sweeney was he on today at all because it's a pretty important thing for the veterans, right and when it comes to Swamp Scott Lynn, we have a very symbiotic relationship All the veterans services or Swamp Scott veterans like myself go through Lynn You know, so Having him here. I think would have probably been rather important That's what it says on the website anyway veteran services for talent Swamp Scott residents go through the Veterans Service Department of Lynn It's clear to me that from tonight's discussion This is not veterans housing we're talking about it's a low-income housing but with strong veteran preferences, so You're going to build this place and possibly level of VFW right now that I'm going to go into some some information on and put veterans in this house that Will discuss the low-income portion also that Aren't going to be able to get to the other side of town if we end up moving it if if you don't put a Place inside that can hold 20 to 30 people 1,500 square feet it's questionable with all with everything you need and then move the by the way, it's a VFW a legion and department or a Disabled American veterans, which I'm a member of all three.

So You move that to the other side of the town Now you've just put these guys into housing here And how are they going to get over there other than a swinging around and getting them when they say they want it? And it's not about drinking. It's about socializing To give you a little bit more information about the VFW.

I have seen some of these spaces down at the VFW So I appreciate that It is three organizations pulled together to keep eye on veterans because it's not always that Veterans that are at the forefront of people everyone has their own problems that they have to solve so We try and take care of each other We have the strongest social Group that I've ever seen at a VFW I've been in several VFWs. I go to them every time because like we talked about earlier it's a comfortable place for a veteran to go and know that he's either surrounded by people that have walked my path or Our friends of the people that have walked the path and our social group that we have that are non veterans have been unbelievable addition to the VFW So you have your veterans and you have the non veterans there that helps to give that Swampska and Lynn Community a better feel for each other. Okay, if you level that building not you, but if this building is leveled and One two, three years goes by until we have a place for that.

We have now killed something that took 20 years to develop a great bond between the veterans within each other and also the social community that we have come to that building, so I Don't think it's a horrible idea to say Keeping that building is the VFW that was promised because now if you do truly intend to have veterans in that housing They have a simple walk over to people that have walked the same steps that they have You know, I honestly am Grateful to you guys for your volunteerism and what you're doing right now Realize that once the draft ended everyone that you're gonna meet that was in the military was a volunteer also, so volunteerism in the community Federally state is very important As Martin Epstein mentioned that there will be on-site veteran services on-site I noticed that ninety three thousand two hundred dollars were allocated in the Budget from Swampska for veteran services.

Is that money going into this? Did that money already go into this? Is it shared with Lynn because Lynn is one that takes care of our veterans services So these are all questions that are circling in my head.

I don't have the answer to I don't even I don't expect you to have it either, but It's something that that I think about when I'm looking at our What's online and what's being said in this community? So I Guess to wrap it up. I'm well over any three-minute type of here, but to wrap it up What do you want Swampska to be in five years ten years twenty years?

In my neighborhood, we're already starting to take hits we have single-family and two-family dwellings and Miss Ippolito was here today and you could tell that Affordable housing versus more housing has driven a thought process in Swampska that Allows us to waiver eight items to put in a six condo house on a single-family Lot so as this continues and we continue to break down the mechanisms that make Swampska great that brings community together What are you going to see in our town? What is our town going to be in five years ten years twenty years?

So I would just like to end with that from Anyone else wants to talk about the VFW post the American Legion post or the disabled American veterans I'd just like to end on that so that it's in the forefront tonight after this very long day I appreciate your efforts in this once again, but something to think about as you drive home.

[Speaker 1] (3:47:50 - 3:47:51)
Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (3:47:51 - 3:47:51)
Mr. Kelly.

[Speaker 1] (3:47:51 - 3:48:11)
Thank you Is there anyone else that would like to speak Okay, so Can I have a motion to adjourn? So move I will second the motion Adjourned