[Speaker 1] (9:35 - 9:54)
Okay, welcome to the December 4th Select Board Meeting. I'm sorry that we're a little bit late. We were taking care of some minutes.

So we're going to start with the Pledge of Allegiance and we are being recorded. So if you could all join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Speaker 21] (9:55 - 10:08)
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 1] (10:10 - 11:17)
Okay. Did I see screens being recorded? You did.

All right, good. Okay, so we have a lot on our agenda tonight. What we're going to do is we also have an open hearing that we have to start at 645.

So what we're going to do right now is we're going to start to address public comment. And the way we're going to be doing public comment tonight is you're welcome to get up and to speak for three minutes about whatever your public comment is. Please state your name and your address.

And please remember that the Select Board cannot respond to your public comment. And I think that's about it. So we are going to do public comment for five minutes, and we're going to stop and then we'll go back to it.

So I'm not stopping for the rest of the night. So are there people here for public comment? Did you want to raise your hand?

Susan Bishop?

[Speaker 2] (11:21 - 11:24)
This is the only time we're going to do it.

[Speaker 3] (11:25 - 11:28)
Mary Ann, did you say the meeting is being recorded? She did. Twice.

Awesome.

[Speaker 15] (11:29 - 11:37)
Three times. Is this public comment for all topics?

[Speaker 1] (11:37 - 11:38)
This is public comment for anything.

[Speaker 15] (11:39 - 13:30)
Okay, hi. Susan Bishop, First Street, Salem. So my statements are you are carelessly disregarding an organization that is not only a safe haven for veterans but gives back to a community tenfold.

Most recently we have held a veteran suicide prevention 5K that raised almost $9,000 for Company to Heroes, an organization who trains rescue dogs to be PTSD service dogs for veterans for free. We spearheaded a huge fundraiser for our beloved Thomas Lucas while he was struggling to recover. We hold annual holiday drives for Toys for Tots and the Chelsea Soldiers Home and Habitat Plus Veteran Home.

Years ago we had several motorcycle runs to raise money for the Avon Walk for Breast Cancer and the North Shore Cancer Walk. We've collaborated with the Swamp Scout Rotary Club sending care packages to our troops overseas. We've sent veterans to fundraisers like the Cabin Fever which benefits the wounded veteran on year number 13.

We've held food drives for the Anchor Food Pantry here in town and just finished our fifth blood drive with the American Cross. We cannot accomplish such great feats at 89 Burrell Street. More importantly, if you move forward with your affordable housing plan, you have not addressed the 50% reduction in the new VFW you're building for us.

Your actions seem insensitive and you show no true compassion for the fact that you are moving over, or steamrolling, 150 veterans, brothers, sisters, and the community. Even a dog knows the difference between when it's tripped over and when it's kicked. Hats off to the veterans that are here tonight to support this.

[Speaker 21] (13:32 - 13:33)
Thank you, Ms. Bishop.

[Speaker 14] (13:44 - 15:56)
Katie Arrington, 40 Royce Street. I am here again to request that the Select Board take no action tonight on the VFW or the proposed affordable housing development on Pine Street. Just like our veterans have attempted to give the Select Board the benefit of doubt on this topic, even after I, too, have given you the benefit of this doubt, even after all that has occurred, I continue to want to be better versed in this matter.

So, therefore, I requested a public request for records, and I was told that I had to pay $450, which I will to buy transparency. Town meeting was told that a new VFW would be part of the proposed affordable housing development. Article 11 approved by town meeting said the same thing.

The RFP issued by Select Board even says so. October 9th, some of the Select Board told the VFW that the Select Board had changed its mind and the existing VFW would remain, and that has since changed. In November, I filed an open meeting law violation complaint against the Select Board concerning the complete and, I believe, illegal lack of transparency by the Select Board regarding the VFW and this project.

The Select Board recently asked the Attorney General's Office for additional time to respond to my open meeting law violation complaint. I did not object to this additional time, and yesterday the Attorney General's Office granted the additional time to respond. But even more importantly, the email from the Attorney General's Office granting the additional time also stated, however, if the Attorney General's Office finds a violation of the open meeting law for failure to post sufficient meeting notices and or discussing matters in executive session without a proper purpose, we may nullify votes taken.

For these reasons, the Select Board should defer any action and take no votes on this matter. The Select Board has done everything in non-public meetings under the guise of the renegotiating the fate of the VFW was part of the larger negotiation with the Affordable Care Act. Very, very important.

[Speaker 16] (15:57 - 16:39)
The town meeting authorized it, and 40 veterans can go into that housing, and there is a real opportunity for veterans. There are 400 veterans, I am told, in Swanscape. They need an opportunity to apply for this.

It is extremely important, in my opinion, that this housing be built. If it can accommodate the post and Borough Street, which is the former home of the American Legion, can be used, it should. Housing is the most important thing in the town at this time for veterans.

[Speaker 1] (16:39 - 16:50)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Demento. Is there anyone else that would like to speak at public comment?

Taking all public comment right now.

[Speaker 19] (16:56 - 18:09)
Liz Smith, Chair of the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee, 18 Hardy Road. I just want to speak on ARPA for a second, take us away from all these other things, because that's on the agenda for later in the evening. I would just like to say that I implore you to keep the resources that have been allocated through ARPA and through appropriations for Fisherman's Beach intact.

The testing that was done over the summer showed that we have a very polluted outfall at Marshall Street going on to Fisherman's Beach. Every single day it exceeded the limits of the testing, so the bacteria was over 24,000 units, 104 is the safe level. And we fought hard to get resources, and we've had a plan for over four years to start doing the work that will fix the pipes that are causing these pollution issues.

We found additional issues that weren't uncovered back then that we are now addressing and need to continue to address, so I'm just asking you not to affect the resources that have been allocated for fishermen's, because the work is just beginning now.

[Speaker 1] (18:09 - 18:11)
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (18:12 - 18:18)
Liz Smith. I got a note from a resident who couldn't attend, but I wanted to read her public comment.

[Speaker 1] (18:20 - 18:26)
Okay, hold on one second. Let's just see if we have anybody else. Is there anyone else for public comment?

Mary DiCillo.

[Speaker 9] (18:45 - 22:55)
I'm Mary DiCillo, Precinct 4. I live at 7 Rockland Street in Swampscott. I speak tonight only on my own behalf, although I am a member of town meeting, and I'm also a member of the 1240 Auxiliary of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

During COVID, I joined a group called Swampscott Equity Association, which was a group of Swampscott residents which sought to prevent the building of the Elm Place Multifamily Development, which is now known as the Westcott. I was not an abutter, nor did I live in the neighborhood, but I felt very strongly that this proposal was wrong for that neighborhood. I joined the effort because I believed over time the neighborhood west of Route 1A had been bearing the burden of development for the entire town of Swampscott, and that with the advent of the new Massachusetts state law, the MPTA Communities Law, which is cited in Massachusetts Constitution Act Amendment Article 89H, it was about to endure more.

The area currently west of 1A includes the counties, which are all the streets, densely populated, the streets around the town train depot, the streets up through Burpee, up to Forest Dam, two Swampscott Senior Public Housing Authority complexes, a Swampscott Housing Authority public housing for families, many condominiums and apartments, which sit on the hill above Route 1A near Vinton Square, and senior housing on Burpee Road, which is a former Michonne school. Added to that in 2008 were the senior center at 100 Essex Street, as well as the new Swampscott High School. The Swampscott Equity Association was unsuccessful in stopping the Westcott project from moving forward because the developers under the law could use the provision of a new law, which would allow the developer to use Section 40B, and the town would lose any control over developing the property.

It's currently being built and will be managed by a multi-million dollar wind construction. The president and CEO of the Wind Management Corporation basically built this, if you go by on Essex Street now, it's astounding to see a five-story building there. I would implore the select board to consider what placing a five-story building would be at Pine Street.

What we have to look forward to, going forward, is an eight-unit place on Boynton Street, which is right around the corner from Pine Street. A railroad property, avenue property, which has not come on the market, but I've heard is being developed across the street from the Willoughby housing. A new overlay district, which just got passed a town meeting on Essex Street, across from 100 Essex Street, at the new high school.

That's going to be proposed for housing. All of the new, the law that just got passed two years ago, this transit authority. And the Vennon Square redevelopment, and the General Glover property.

I feel it is imperative to find some compromise here. I'm totally supportive of veterans' housing, and I'm totally supportive of getting, having veterans having a place for themselves. I think this is a small town.

There has to be some sort of give and take. There's been millions of projects in this town. The new high school was one of them, where the neighborhood was very opposed to it, and eventually it was the only place, really, that we could have a new high school.

So, one of, I would leave with, it is about the town. It's about trying to find appropriate, and the give and take, and where people, everybody's needs get something. Thank you.

Thank you, Mary. Okay, so, David?

[Speaker 5] (22:56 - 23:03)
Yeah. Yeah, I just got an email from a resident who couldn't attend. She's at work.

Good evening.

[Speaker 1] (23:03 - 23:04)
Does she have a name?

[Speaker 5] (23:04 - 24:47)
Yes. Krista Burke, 215 Windsor Avenue, Swampscott. Good evening.

My name is Krista Burke. I'm a town meeting member in Precinct 1, life member of the VFW Post 1240 Auxiliary, and proud military wife. I'm unable to attend tonight's meeting.

However, I'm writing to implore the select board to table the vote to approve the land disposition agreement and ground lease for 10 New Ocean Street and 12 to 24 Pine Street. Rushing to sign the lease and leveling the VFW Post 1240 without giving them a new handicap accessible move-in ready space with their liquor license intact and plenty of parking, which was promised in the beginning, should be a non-starter. The offer to relocate them to Recharts is not a viable option for many reasons.

And I believe that Mary Ellen Fletcher, Danielle Leonard, and Katie Phelan are fully aware that it is not an acceptable compromise. Although I voted for this project and fully recognize the value of and the need for low-income and affordable housing, especially for our veterans, the project that you are voting on tonight is not what was agreed to at town meeting and is a complete betrayal of what was promised to the current members of our veterans community just weeks ago. I'm extremely disappointed that the three select women would turn around and double-cross our veterans after telling them to their faces that their home was safe and that they could coexist and remain in their current space.

It is disingenuous to say you must sacrifice the VFW Post 1240 in the name of some greater good when really it is the sake of pleasing the developer. If they, the developer, want to walk away from the deal, let them, and try again down the road. Please find your integrity and table the vote until you can strike a deal that honors your commitment to town meeting and to all of our veterans and members of VFW Post 1240.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (24:50 - 25:05)
Thank you, Sister Bird. Okay, so I'm not seeing anyone else have their hands up for public comment. So we're going to move to our agenda now.

Okay. We do have someone.

[Speaker 17] (25:14 - 27:19)
My name is Alicia McCarthy. I live at 9 Pine Street right across from where the building is to be built. I grew up in Swampscot.

But the beaches were never unusable all summer long. I stayed in Swampscot and came back to Swampscot and chose the house that I did so that I could walk to the beach with my children. We didn't walk to the beach not one time this summer because the flags were red.

They couldn't even use Fisherman's Beach for the rec department. I lifeguarded at Mahant Beach for eight years through my teens and my young adulthood. The flags were never red.

This summer, we didn't even go to Mahant because they were red half the summer. The beaches are becoming unusable because of the pollution and the sewer problems. If the sewers can't even accommodate the residents that are there right now, how can they possibly accommodate 42 more residents?

In addition, the dispensary was built across the street. We were promised that our privacy on our street would remain intact. Despite numerous complaints, nobody does anything about the fact that there are middle-aged men waiting for the store to open at 8.30 in the morning parked outside my house while my children are getting ready for school. So, I do not have the confidence that the town has my family's best interests at heart. On the same page, two of my children attend the new elementary school. I sent a letter addressing my concerns that they put a bus stop directly in front of a sex offender's house on New Ocean Street.

I was told that the town already knew about this individual, but thank you for my concern. So again, I don't think the town has my family and my children in their best interest.

[Speaker 1] (27:19 - 27:31)
Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Is there anyone else?

[Speaker 20] (27:34 - 27:37)
Hi. How are you? My name is Cesar Mejia, 27 Pine Street.

[Speaker 1] (27:37 - 27:39)
Cesar, what is your last name?

[Speaker 20] (27:39 - 27:39)
Mejia.

[Speaker 1] (27:39 - 27:40)
Mejia.

[Speaker 20] (27:41 - 28:45)
So I just want to start off. I'm not against the housing itself. I'm against the size of the project.

I think it's too big for the neighborhood. My wife and I chose Swampscott to raise our kids here in a smaller, quiet neighborhood. Adding 42 units or 40, whatever it is, there's so much lack of transparency that it's hard to say what's real and what's not.

I think it's going to be too much not only for just our neighborhood, but all over town. It's going to increase the traffic, just all around everything. I believe somebody else spoke on Elm Street.

That's additional cars on the road, additional traffic, everything. And we're already having an issue on the street with speeding. Is this going to exacerbate things?

Is it going to be how, like, we already have issues with parking as well on the side streets. Where are we going to park? Where are they going to park when it snows?

So like I said, I'm not against the project. I'm against the size of it. So I think it'd be great if you guys could go back to the design board and make something smaller that works for everyone, in a sense.

So thank you.

[Speaker 1] (28:45 - 28:53)
Thank you. Hold on. We have a gentleman here.

[Speaker 13] (28:54 - 28:56)
Do you want to take that person? No.

[Speaker 1] (28:56 - 28:56)
We're waiting on you.

[Speaker 13] (28:57 - 29:07)
Sorry. When you're this good looking, you get to talk. My name's Connor Shanahan.

I bought a house on Pine Street and Boynton Street two and a half years ago, so you can blame me.

[Speaker 1] (29:07 - 29:09)
Could you just tell us your street address?

[Speaker 13] (29:10 - 31:10)
I can. Okay. I was working up to that.

Thank you. It's 3 Boynton Street. I think a lack of transparency is a big issue here.

I can recall coming home from work, I took a half a day after a dentist appointment, to this property being torn down, and I went to my neighbor and I said, weren't we going to be told that this was going to happen? But don't worry. I got a folded piece of paper in my mailbox that day post dated.

So I found out. That was great. I've got a bad taste in my mouth with this property.

I just bought my own house, and so on Boynton Street, we have another property coming in. Eight units was mentioned earlier. That's great.

Make your money, developers. That's fine. When you tear down a property, 12 to 24 Pine Street, and the business that tore it down picks up their excavator at 2.30 in the morning because there's no noise ordinance in Swampscott, and it wakes up families and guys who have to get up and go to work, it's really frustrating. I know that's not our issue tonight, but it's one of my many issues, let me tell you. So I agree with a lot of what was said. I agree with just about everything.

There doesn't seem to be much transparency. I'm ignorant of a lot of this stuff, and I'm ignorant of a lot of stuff out there, too. But it seems to me 42 is a great number, Jackie Robinson's number.

It's retired in baseball. It's absurd to fit 42 units in that street right there. Swampscott is a great little town, and we absolutely need to see to our veterans' needs 100%.

But we need to find the right place to do it, and maybe it is there, but that number is so big. So thanks very much, and thank you to our veterans, too, I'm sorry, and I am ignorant.

[Speaker 1] (31:11 - 31:11)
Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (31:17 - 31:18)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (31:20 - 31:22)
There is somebody online? SP.

[Speaker 15] (31:32 - 31:33)
Hi, you can talk.

[Speaker 1] (31:36 - 31:37)
We have somebody on...

[Speaker 15] (31:37 - 31:38)
Somebody online.

[Speaker 1] (31:38 - 31:57)
You'll be next if you want to come on up. You know, we'll put Mr. Peterson on hold. Sir, would you like to come on up?

[Speaker 13] (32:12 - 32:48)
My name is Dave Reynolds, 12 Pines and 19 Pines Street. I am fed up with the whole deal. I mean, the building's too big.

What we're going through during the day. The smoke shop parked in front of my house. Sit there, and they smoke their cigarettes.

You only want to call them cigarettes. Marijuana. I mean, we're going through a lot of stuff, even with the VFW.

They're out there 9, 10 o'clock at night, drinking, smoking the marijuana. They're passing a cigarette around. You can see them passing it.

We're going through heckle there already. You want to put 42 units over there? It doesn't make sense at all.

[Speaker 1] (32:48 - 32:54)
That's all I got to say. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Steve Peterson asked to be unmuted.

[Speaker 4] (32:59 - 33:02)
He has to. He's unmuted. He has to unmute himself.

[Speaker 1] (33:11 - 33:16)
Okay, Mr. Peterson, we're going to have to move on. Is he able to unmute himself?

[Speaker 4] (33:17 - 33:21)
We also have Bill Demento and John Ellis with their hands up.

[Speaker 1] (33:23 - 33:24)
Marsha Dalton?

[Speaker 18] (33:29 - 33:30)
I guess I'm unmuted now.

[Speaker 1] (33:31 - 33:34)
Oh, Marsha, just hold on. Okay, go ahead, sir.

[Speaker 18] (33:35 - 34:59)
Steve Peterson, Ninewind Shua Drive, Windmass. I just wanted to follow up to a comment from the last meeting regarding the beach water quality. A mention of a living reef was commented.

And I've been submitting some stuff to the item letters to the editor regarding putting oyster beds or oyster reefs out there. There's a lot of work being done here and there. New York City, Chesapeake Bay, Dubai, the Netherlands.

You have some experts off the hot, the oceanographic people. Maybe consolidate with them. There's a lot of good YouTube content to review.

And I see some examples of stuff that's working that could be in addition to everything you're doing trying to mitigate bio-burden to the beach. This could be a pilot. And whatever makes it slips through the fingers of whatever treatment system might be on high rain, huge storm day, oysters out there can filter 50 gallons each a day.

And they can work to provide a very simple, sustainable solution for the bio-burden that makes it to the beach. That's all.

[Speaker 1] (34:59 - 35:04)
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Marsha?

[Speaker 9] (35:07 - 36:01)
Marsha Dalton, 37 Pine Street. Unfortunately, well, fortunately, most of what I was going to say has already been said tonight. So I won't reiterate it, just that I do agree with it.

The one thing that wasn't brought up is that my neighbor has been told repeatedly by members of the DPW that if a building of that size goes in, we're going to have some major problems with the water pressure, water pipes, because they're old pipes. I mean, you can't help it, it's an old town, it's old pipes. So I did want to bring that up.

I also want to bring up that none of the neighbors, most of the neighbors are not against the veterans. We love the veterans. And we wouldn't mind the housing if it was a lot smaller.

So that's really all I have to say today. And thank you all for your service. Thank you, Mrs. Dalton. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (36:06 - 36:19)
So if it's getting... John Ellis. It's getting a little late, so if you could just be mindful of that, it would be greatly appreciated.

So Mr. Ellis, if you want to comment.

[Speaker 16] (36:20 - 36:35)
Yeah, absolutely. Can you all hear me? Okay, sorry.

Unfortunately, my camera won't work. So I live right across the street from Connor and Marsha. I just want to just express, I'm a new resident to the area.

Oh, perfect.

[Speaker 1] (36:35 - 36:40)
Now my video works. Mr. Ellis, what is your address? Yeah, it's 42 Pine Street.

[Speaker 16] (36:41 - 38:01)
Unfortunately, sorry, I'm not able to be there in person. I would prefer that, but I'm dealing with mice issues from all the construction in the area. So we've got the building in Boynton, and then also the VFW deconstruction, and then what will now be construction in the future.

So my big thing is, it is a very large building for our neighborhood. One of my big appreciations for Swanscott since I've moved here is that it is a small town, and that a five-story building is very large for this neighborhood. It's going to stick out.

I mean, it's a massive construction, and so the impact on us as residents is going to be very significant. And I feel like that, I agree that there's a middle ground to be had where this development could be scaled down such that we can still provide housing, but then also be conscientious of the residents in the area where we don't have a five-story building sticking out above all of our two-story and three-story residences. Those are my two cents, but I do agree.

I think that the traffic, the additional number of residents is going to be a big downside, and hopefully we can come to a consensus.

[Speaker 1] (38:03 - 38:39)
Thank you, Mr. Ellis. Okay, so with that said, I think we've gotten through all of the comments, and we're going to now move to our joint meeting with the Finance Committee. Thank you very much, Finance Committee, for your patience.

Do you need to make a motion? I called my meeting to order. Okay, very good.

So you folks want to start, or do we want to have Amy? We're going to start with the... Amy, we'll go to you with the...

order, assessors.

[Speaker 4] (38:40 - 38:43)
Our assessor is actually going to kick off our presentation.

[Speaker 1] (38:44 - 39:00)
Well, hold on a second. I just have a real quick, just to clarify... So what we're going to do is we have to open into a public meeting.

We're going to open up into a public hearing. Okay, so can I have a motion to open into a public hearing?

[Speaker 3] (39:03 - 39:07)
I will. Did you intentionally skip the renewal stuff, number one?

[Speaker 1] (39:09 - 39:13)
We're going to come back to the renewals. I'm going to get rid of the Finance Committee for a second.

[Speaker 3] (39:14 - 39:16)
I don't mean get rid of, you know.

[Speaker 1] (39:17 - 39:39)
Just helping you out. So I need a motion to open into public hearing. So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, so now we're in a public hearing.

Amy, you want to take us... You want to take us through the assessor? Or is the assessor...

[Speaker 20] (39:40 - 39:41)
Did you open your meeting?

[Speaker 1] (39:41 - 39:42)
We did.

[Speaker 4] (39:44 - 39:55)
Just wanted to make sure. That's really loud. I'm going to turn it over to Paul Klufe, our assessor, to start our presentation.

[Speaker 7] (39:58 - 45:24)
Good evening. This is my first classification hearing here with Solom Scott. Great.

I've been here eight weeks or so, and it's been kind of a crazy trip. The Board of Assessors is responsible for assessing and setting values within the town. We use market data to determine where our values need to be and each year that can change.

Certainly in the last 10 years or so, we've been in an appreciating market. The assessor's office and through our consultants, we also look for new growth in town, and new growth is found with building permits, listings, sales, inspections of property where we can find anything that would be considered new growth. That could be a new deck, new house, new updated kitchen, any of those things that would be considered as new growth.

One of the things that, you know, we look at when we're looking and setting our values, we're dealing with the denominator revenue. Our sales report gets certified by them before we can move on to the next step, followed by our growth, which hopefully will be approved in the next few days. Our values are set for the year for fiscal 25 awaiting approval from the Department of Revenue.

And so we're a little, in my opinion, a little bit early in doing a classification hearing because we're not completely there yet. So there have been some changes and I'm still getting caught up to speed here. I think I looked at this for about an hour yesterday.

So values have gone up a little bit this year in fiscal 25 compared to last year. So there have been some minor changes. You know, we've increased some properties here or there.

One of the things when you look at this chart, it's really not complete. Really what the Department of Revenue is looking for is most likely changes in use codes. For instance, if a property was a 130, which is a billable lot, and it goes to a 101 or a single family, we look at those as a change in the numbers in town.

So there has been a lot of... Well, it looks like in Swampscott you have certainly a fair amount of condominiums in town. And that has gone up by 6 additional condominiums.

And I don't believe that they were new condominiums. Probably conversions of two families or three families that get converted to condominiums. The other area of growth for us is personal property.

We do have an outside vendor that looks at that. The biggest chunk of that personal property comes from public utilities, telephone pipelines, et cetera. So it appears that historically, you know, things have gone up with the commercial, industrial, personal property.

Swampscott has a very low CIP percentage comparing to some other towns, comparing to the number of parcels that you have in town. So from 24 to 25, there's been about a 2% increase in values due to personal properties. And that could be from new businesses that have started in town, businesses that are existing in town that have brought in new assets into their business, and that's included in new growth.

Residential values, looking like from last year to this year, overall values have gone up about 3% on average. And, of course, the biggest chunk of values in the largest percentage of properties in town are single families followed by condominiums, and then we go down to two families and some of the lesser other types of properties. You do have some significant apartment buildings in town, and those are usually valued, and we look at an income approach on those types of properties.

So the medium assessed value, if I'm looking at this correctly, has gone up about just under 2%, 1.75% from last year. I'm sorry, that's for commercial properties. Single families have gone up about 2.5% from last year. So it's a small increase overall in valuation. And some of that is due to some of the new properties that have been either constructed or converted in town. Similarly, same with single families.

The average assessed values have gone up slightly more than the median at 3.2% for single families. And again, you know, single families are the biggest force in town and the biggest collection of residential taxpayers. New growth apparently was really low last year.

So this year we're looking at around $400,000 in growth, so that's an additional $200,000 from last year. And that's derived, again, from permits that we have, Patriot Properties out there respecting anything that has a building permit, we're out there looking. Other types of inspections, listings, sales, all that information that we pick from, anything that we didn't have prior to last year is considered as new growth.

[Speaker 4] (45:29 - 46:41)
All right, I'll switch over and talk about tax bills. But if you have any assessor-specific questions, please point them that way. So the average single-family tax bills over the last 10 years, Swampscott used to be the third highest out of our 34 peer communities, and now we are the 10th highest as our 2024 rate.

So we have, you know, tried to trend more towards the median on that with, you know, budgeting and keeping our constraints in place. If you are curious, Wenham is number one on that. So way to go, Wenham.

The single-family tax bill, the average single-family tax bill, sorry, compared to Essex County, we are now only 15% higher than the rest of the county. We used to be 41% higher. So while the rest of the county has increased over 50% in the last 10 years, we've only increased about 20%.

So we have been trying to keep more in line with our county and with our peer group to be more appropriately ranked.

[Speaker 5] (46:42 - 46:48)
Ms. Sarrow, do we have a similar chart for the median single-family tax bill?

[Speaker 4] (46:48 - 46:59)
We do not, because median is not anything that's reported to DOR, so we would actually have to get the entirety of the values from every other community for every year to then calculate that.

[Speaker 5] (47:00 - 47:00)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (47:02 - 48:45)
If that is something you would like, we can start a project for you. And then this is just looking at the average single-family value. So the values in Swanscrott have increased.

And over the past 10 years, Swanscrott has, their value has increased approximately 12% more than the county value. So buying a house in Swanscrott is still a good value for those homeowners. I am not going to read this slide to you.

This is here more for your information. This is just showing our peer group, the population, the distance that we have from there, that information. So our single-family assessed values over the last 10 years are peer group versus Swanscrott.

Swanscrott is in the orange for these. So we are, you know, within one percentage mark of our peer group for those assessed values. And then this is going peer group to Swanscrott on the tax bills.

So back in 2014, we were 29% higher than everyone else, and now we are only 6% higher. And then everyone's favorite comparison is Marblehead. So over the last 10 years, Marblehead has increased 46% on their average single-family tax bill.

Swanscrott has been about 20, and our peer group has been 47.

[Speaker 1] (48:46 - 48:54)
Is the new elementary school calculated in these? Yep, this is calculated into our tax rate.

[Speaker 4] (48:59 - 50:12)
This slide is just going over the average commercial industrial values over the last 10 years from Essex County and Swanscrott. So you can see that the assessed values are higher in Swanscrott comparable to our peer community, and we're about 38% difference on that. Likewise, the next slide shows the tax bill difference.

So Swanscrott does have a 93% higher tax bill basis for those commercial industrial values, but as you'll notice, we have a higher value for it. And then this is just going over the tax policy option. So basically this is how we get to our tax rate.

So obviously we set the town budget, we estimate our local receipts, all of that happened leading up to and including annual town meeting night. There's discussion about small business exemptions and residential exemptions. Monday night we will be discussing the application of free cash or reserves to mitigate this tax increase.

And when the board votes after DOR certifies the values, we'll be discussing the split rate. So last year we did the $175 shift, but that will be part of the discussion as well.

[Speaker 1] (50:13 - 50:14)
What was our split last year?

[Speaker 4] (50:14 - 50:16)
We did a $175 last year.

[Speaker 11] (50:16 - 50:18)
Amy, when does that discussion you just mentioned happen?

[Speaker 4] (50:19 - 50:20)
Special town meeting? It's Monday.

[Speaker 11] (50:21 - 50:25)
No, no, no, I mean the discussion after you get the DOR certification.

[Speaker 4] (50:25 - 50:34)
The formal vote will happen Monday or Tuesday before special town meeting depending on when we get the certification from DOR.

[Speaker 11] (50:35 - 50:37)
So you're expecting that on Monday in other words?

[Speaker 4] (50:37 - 50:39)
We're expecting it ideally by the end of this week.

[Speaker 11] (50:41 - 50:43)
Any risk of that not coming in by the end of this week?

[Speaker 4] (50:44 - 50:50)
It shouldn't be, it doesn't usually take more than a week. Paul's been in regular contact with DOR answering any questions.

[Speaker 7] (50:52 - 51:59)
The problem here is that things have started very, very, very late. The process should have started at least two months ago. And here we are in December.

We're trying to get all these steps approved. It takes the Department of Revenue a little bit of time. They are trying to push things ahead.

They do have questions. Some of them I have been able to answer. There's only one question I have yet to answer.

Hopefully tomorrow I will be able to do that. The problem with, I'm coming in just in eight weeks trying to clear up issues that have been neglected. And so we are doing our very best to get everything approved so that an actual classification hearing can happen.

So tonight is very preliminary. We could play with some numbers and whatever, but it's really not a time to do that. And hopefully before your special town meeting I'm hopeful that all that will fall into place.

[Speaker 1] (51:59 - 52:52)
Over the last three, maybe four years we are continually in this situation. And some of the factors that are involved here is the size of our staff. I met with DOR in the summertime and DOR is adamant that we need to address the amount of labor that we're putting into our assessor's office.

We've also had a new hire in the assessor's office and we rely on Patriot Properties and Patriot Properties does a lot of communities and they're really busy and our evaluations come in very late. So this situation is being addressed but this is not a new situation. I actually looked in my notes and we're a week ahead of schedule compared to last year.

So we are improving, but we're going to drastically improve next year.

[Speaker 7] (52:54 - 52:56)
Hopefully next year we're doing this in November.

[Speaker 4] (52:57 - 53:08)
One more week ahead. Why don't we follow up on that? I'm going to switch it over to Patrick Lutte who's going to run through some of the gateway reports.

[Speaker 10] (53:08 - 53:32)
Thank you. The next few slides are the financial reporting that we have to submit after the assessors have completed their values. These steps look at how financial articles that town meeting passes and how the state budget affects our tax levy.

The first slide here...

[Speaker 1] (53:32 - 53:38)
Patrick, hold on one second. Gentlemen, Mr. Patios? Go ahead, Patrick.

[Speaker 10] (53:38 - 56:15)
Thank you. The first slide here details all the votes that have been taken at town meeting that includes the annual budget, votes of free cash and other available funds as well as votes to fund our enterprise funds. Those are all reflected here.

Any votes that are taken at town meeting on Monday that are financial will be added to this page before we submit. Next slide. In addition to the appropriations the town has made over the past year, we are also responsible for paying for state assessments which are determined through formulas that the legislature has put forth.

This year we're looking at approximately $1.9 million of state charges. It's broken out into two primary categories of education. Actually, four categories.

We have transportation, education-related assessments which are tuition for charter schools as well as other charges. Compared to last year, these are down about $40,000 which is good. Next slide.

After we've accounted for all of our appropriations and charges that we're responsible for we have to look at what revenue we can raise That's listed out here. The total amount of revenue we have to raise is $81,630,000. That's from all sources, not just taxes.

Next slide. After we've identified the total amount to raise we look at what we are receiving from the state for state aid. This year that's about $7.3 million broken out into two categories, general government and education. This year our state aid is up $331,000 or 4.7% compared to last year. This is going to be used to correctly offset what we have to raise through the tax levy. Next slide.

This slide is an overview of our local receipts. These are town charges such as motor vehicle excise taxes, local option taxes that town meeting has passed, departmental receipts and fees and permit fees and other sources of revenue that don't come from property tax or the state. This is also used to reduce the total amount we have to raise through property taxes.

This year we're up about 3% versus our estimates last year at tax rate setting. Bottom line, it's very in line with our budget estimates as well.

[Speaker 5] (56:15 - 56:31)
Next slide. I'm looking at actual receipts of $7.523 million versus fiscal $25 of $6276. That's up?

[Speaker 10] (56:32 - 56:39)
We're up from our estimates when we last set the tax rate. You want to compare the $6.2 to the $6.08?

[Speaker 5] (56:39 - 56:40)
Sorry.

[Speaker 10] (56:40 - 57:29)
We budget for revenue conservatively every year and our actual receipts we expect to come in above budget. It's a little funky. Next slide.

Finally, after we've accounted for all of our appropriations charges and other sources of revenue, we're going to calculate what the levy comes down to. That's this final report that we submit. You'll notice highlighted we have a place to report amounts that town meeting votes to use free cash to reduce the tax rate or other available funds to reduce the tax rate.

Depending on the outcome on Monday, that will be updated to reflect that. Finally, at the bottom here we'll get the net levy number which before free cash is $59 million approximately.

[Speaker 11] (57:30 - 57:32)
I'm sorry, Patrick. What happens on Monday to update?

[Speaker 10] (57:33 - 57:51)
Can we fill out 1B? If town meeting votes to use an amount of free cash to reduce the tax rate, that will be reflected. That's not reflected on this page yet.

Next slide. I'm going to turn it over to Amy Saron. She's going to talk about our reserves.

[Speaker 4] (57:54 - 1:00:00)
In late October, we got our free cash certification from the Department of Revenue. Just a reminder, free cash is the excess revenue above our estimates and the unexpended appropriations that we have on the expenditure side. Our financial policy that was adopted sets a 3-5% of the general fund budget is where we should ideally have this reserve.

This just shows where our 3% and our 5% is. We were certified at about 5.5% of our general fund budget. With the estimated votes that we have for Monday, it would put us at 3.54%. We would still be within our policy. Thankfully, we're certified slightly above last year, but we're typically sitting around that 3.7 million is kind of where we've been the last few years as we've stuck with our very conservative approach to estimating revenue as well as trying to keep a very lean operating budget. Our other financial reserves is our general and capital stabilization funds. In 2016, there was a big focus on building those reserves, especially towards making those reserves good to get us our AAA bond rating as well as to allow us the ability to get the new elementary school.

Back in 2023, we utilized a million from general stabilization and $320,000 from capital stabilization to reduce the tax rate in addition to the free cash. The policy for this is 9-10% of the general operating budget should be where our general stabilization is. Right now, it's at 9.05%. Our capital stabilization should be between 2 and 4%.

[Speaker 5] (1:00:00 - 1:00:11)
Right now, it's at 2.02%. Amy, you mentioned fiscal year 23, we used $1.32 million to reduce our tax levy. What did we use in 24?

[Speaker 4] (1:00:12 - 1:00:19)
We did not. That's just the normal investment We used a million dollars in cash.

[Speaker 10] (1:00:20 - 1:00:21)
That didn't come out of these funds.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:22 - 1:00:27)
We didn't use any stabilization funds. We've also not made any contributions.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:27 - 1:00:28)
We also haven't put anything in there.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:33 - 1:00:41)
This slide is just showing the tax impact of the new school construction. Patrick, do you want to?

[Speaker 10] (1:00:42 - 1:01:45)
I can talk about this quickly. When we looked to town meeting for approval for the construction of the new elementary school, we looked at what the tax impact would be to the median single family homeowner at the time. We forecasted that out to see how we could use our projected available resources to mitigate that going out 5-10 years while we pay off other debt for projects such as the high school and the police station, which we're still responsible for, and that the taxpayer is still bearing the burden of.

We have some analysis we can do to see what we can do to reduce the impact of the taxes. That's what we've done here. If we can get the impact down to $1 a day, that would be about $850,000 of free cash.

Or if we could do a little more, we could keep it down to $300,000. So we look at this analysis, and then we go to the finance committee and the select board and town meeting to see what resources we have available to accomplish that.

[Speaker 1] (1:01:47 - 1:02:11)
It's fair to say the reason why you're putting so much effort into using the free cash to offset the taxes is so that we stay true to what was sold to Swamp Scout residents to vote for the new school to keep the tax bill approximately $1 a day. That's why you're putting...

[Speaker 11] (1:02:11 - 1:02:17)
To be clear, keeping the impact of the debt service of the school to that number.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:18 - 1:02:23)
No, just the impact of the debt service to the school. Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:02:26 - 1:03:51)
So this slide shows the use of one-time funds to reduce the tax rate. So without any funds at all to reduce the tax rate, if we went with a 1-7 shift, the average single-family tax bill would go up $509, and the median would go up $365. With a 1-7-5 shift, which is the maximum which was done last year, the average single-family tax bill would go up about $473, and the median would go up about $334.

So what the finance team is recommending is the use of $850,000 in free cash, which would, with a 1-7-5 shift, do about $315 for the average and $203 for the median. And if you voted a 1-7 shift, it would still only be a $352 impact to the average single-family and about $234 to the median. We feel that that is still in line with the promise that was made to the taxpayers while still keeping a little bit of our free cash to be used for the rest of the fiscal year as it may potentially be needed.

[Speaker 11] (1:03:53 - 1:04:35)
And did the finance committee have a recommendation on the 1-7 versus 1-75? We did not talk about that now. We didn't have that recommendation yet.

We just talked about the $850,000. We were comfortable with doing just what we just said, keeping within the original promises made at town meeting regarding the new school debt. And we just continue to be concerned or a little surprised to hear that free cash grew as much as it did.

I was kind of worried that it was going to be lower. I think Amy was as well. So that was kind of a pleasant surprise.

But we also recognized that we're kind of right on the cusp of all the lower ends of our policies for our reserves. So $850,000, we thought that was the right number. It wasn't really an appetite to go any higher.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:38 - 1:04:44)
Amy, could you explain the 1-70 versus 1-75 for those who are not familiar with the shift concept?

[Speaker 4] (1:04:45 - 1:04:51)
I can try, and Paul can definitely correct me if I'm wrong. It is shifting the tax burden from the residential...

[Speaker 21] (1:04:51 - 1:04:52)
Amy, can you repeat the question?

[Speaker 4] (1:04:52 - 1:05:20)
Sorry, the question was what is the shift, essentially. So it's shifting. So instead of doing a single tax rate system where your commercial and your residential properties are taxed at exactly the same rate, this shifts the burden, essentially, alleviating it off the residential taxpayer and shifting a higher burden onto the commercial properties at that 1-70 or 1-75 amount.

[Speaker 7] (1:05:21 - 1:05:44)
Yeah, so that's the maximum shift that you can do. That's the maximum shift that you can do. So when you start shifting off of the residential portion of the tax levy, which is the big chunk, even if it's a 5% shift, it's a bigger hit onto the commercial, especially when you have such a small commercial, industrial, and personal property, which is, I don't know, less than 5%.

So it's a big shift onto them.

[Speaker 14] (1:05:45 - 1:05:49)
And they're not benefiting necessarily from the school, such as the residents are.

[Speaker 15] (1:05:51 - 1:05:56)
Unless they are both residents and business owners, but there's only a few of those.

[Speaker 4] (1:05:56 - 1:06:05)
So it's the same shift, whether it's a small business like on Humphrey Street versus a larger business like Whole Foods or Stop and Shop.

[Speaker 21] (1:06:06 - 1:06:07)
Thank you.

[Speaker 4] (1:06:07 - 1:06:59)
And then this just goes over the next step. So we're waiting for the Department of Revenue to approve the Board of Assessors' Values and New Growth that was voted at their December 3rd meeting. We've already had free cash certified, and tonight is our hearing.

So the next set would be the select board setting the tax rate at either the Monday or Tuesday upcoming meeting, and then special town meeting to vote on the article on use of free cash for the tax rate. Sorry, for the free cash to reduce the tax rate. We will submit everything to the Department of Revenue to have them certify those rates, and then Patrick will issue the tax bills and ensure that they're issued by January 1st.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:02 - 1:07:09)
So, Amy, right now there's no recommendation to allocate any free cash to any of the stabilization funds?

[Speaker 4] (1:07:10 - 1:07:17)
Not right now. That can be done at annual town meeting, and that usually is an annual town meeting article. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:19 - 1:07:42)
But you feel like appropriating this money from free cash to offset the tax rate will leave us perhaps something left to replenish any of those funds at annual town meeting, or do you feel like given perhaps what other items free cash might be utilized for that we're going to be in a position where we might not be able to replenish any of those stabilization funds?

[Speaker 4] (1:07:42 - 1:08:35)
So by annual town meeting, we'll have a much better look at what the end-of-year projection is going to look like. So you'll actually have two tranches that you can look at. You know, the available free cash, which right now you're about $400,000 over the low end of the policy.

So to be clear, that means you have $2.56 million that can be used to go, but also if there are, you know, unanticipated revenues that far exceed that the board and the finance committee feel, you know, instead of them falling to free cash to further be appropriated, we can do an amendment at that time, or if there's just, you know, a lot of unexpended appropriations that can be adjusted at annual town meeting to also go in.

So usually annual town meeting in May is the best time to look at that.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:37 - 1:08:40)
$2.56, your reference is after the $8.50?

[Speaker 4] (1:08:40 - 1:08:45)
That is after all four of the articles at annual town meeting that are utilizing free cash.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:47 - 1:08:52)
But to Doug's question, that presupposes the $8.50, not the one or the $1.1. Correct.

[Speaker 11] (1:08:57 - 1:09:15)
So Amy, the difference in the, just getting back to the $1.75 versus $1.7 shift, what is the difference percentage-wise, I'm just not sure what column it shows here, like what will the commercial tax rate go up by under the $1.70 versus $1.75 in a percentage basis? Is that on there?

[Speaker 4] (1:09:16 - 1:09:23)
No, that is not on there. But I can... Do you want that?

[Speaker 11] (1:09:26 - 1:09:59)
I'm just trying to quantify, you know, how much is the difference to the commercial taxpayer going from $1.70 to $1.75? We have the dollars, right, on this page, on 33. Right, so basically comparing if you get the $8.50 for the average for commercial, $3.52, right, versus $3.15. So the rate, Patrick, would go $20.57 versus $21.18?

[Speaker 10] (1:09:59 - 1:10:10)
Right, so the rate goes up, excuse me, the commercial rate would go up 60 cents, and that's a 2.9% increase in the rate itself.

[Speaker 11] (1:10:14 - 1:10:19)
So 2.9% higher than it would be if we only did the $1.70?

[Speaker 8] (1:10:19 - 1:10:19)
Correct.

[Speaker 11] (1:10:22 - 1:10:23)
Can you tell me what the rate is now?

[Speaker 10] (1:10:25 - 1:10:40)
Yep, I wrote it down here. The commercial rate set last year was $21.23, and the rate this year, if we use the maximum shift, and the $8.50 would be $21.18, so it would be less.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:40 - 1:10:43)
So it would go down in either case? Yes, the per thousand goes down either way.

[Speaker 1] (1:10:45 - 1:10:52)
That's one of the reasons why we should be considering to keep it a little bit higher, because it's still going down.

[Speaker 11] (1:10:54 - 1:11:03)
Would the assessed values go up, did you say, for commercial versus... Would the assessed values go up for commercial versus... It's like 2% versus 3% in residential.

[Speaker 21] (1:11:04 - 1:11:04)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:11:07 - 1:11:10)
But the value itself went up 3%.

[Speaker 21] (1:11:11 - 1:11:11)
3%.

[Speaker 3] (1:11:13 - 1:11:16)
So are we looking to vote tonight?

[Speaker 4] (1:11:17 - 1:11:19)
You are not voting tonight, right?

[Speaker 11] (1:11:20 - 1:11:24)
The Finance Committee has to vote on the use of the $8.50. I think that's the one we have to vote on.

[Speaker 4] (1:11:25 - 1:11:29)
You can do it tonight, or you can do it Monday before the meeting, wherever you feel comfortable.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:32 - 1:11:34)
Do we vote on the shift, or is that their decision?

[Speaker 4] (1:11:35 - 1:11:36)
That is the Select Board decision.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:36 - 1:11:37)
Did you want to?

[Speaker 4] (1:11:38 - 1:11:41)
It has a financial impact, though, so you can vote on it.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:45 - 1:11:47)
You don't have even a quorum to vote tonight.

[Speaker 4] (1:11:47 - 1:11:50)
They have three members virtually, so they do have a quorum.

[Speaker 11] (1:11:51 - 1:11:56)
But I'm going to suggest that we wait until Monday if there's more information to be had between now and then.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:56 - 1:12:00)
Or tomorrow's meeting, if you're still holding it. Do you have a meeting tomorrow?

[Speaker 11] (1:12:00 - 1:12:14)
No, we're going to, but I don't see a need for it. We'll just meet Monday. There's nothing new to learn between now and tomorrow, to my knowledge.

So you're going to meet before? We have a meeting scheduled at 6 on the day of town meetings, so we'll probably just do it there. Do we have a joint?

[Speaker 1] (1:12:15 - 1:12:30)
Okay. Do you have any other questions for the Finance Committee? Anybody from the Select Board?

Any questions?

[Speaker 3] (1:12:31 - 1:12:33)
Thank you very much.

[Speaker 11] (1:12:33 - 1:12:35)
Amy, Patrick.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:36 - 1:12:37)
Don't forget to close your meetings.

[Speaker 11] (1:12:39 - 1:12:41)
Can I get a motion to close the Finance Committee meeting?

[Speaker 21] (1:12:42 - 1:12:43)
So moved.

[Speaker 11] (1:12:43 - 1:12:52)
Second. Can I get Greg, Sender, and Adrian all to say aye? Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:53 - 1:12:57)
Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Sender said aye, and Adrian raised her hand. All in favor?

[Speaker 9] (1:12:59 - 1:12:59)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:01 - 1:13:20)
Thank you. Okay. So let us jump back up to discussion and possible vote to renew the annual permits.

Amy, who's walking us through that one?

[Speaker 13] (1:13:21 - 1:13:22)
Matt.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:25 - 1:13:28)
Maybe we can have Matt introduce himself before we start.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:29 - 1:13:31)
All right, Matt, you want to introduce yourself there?

[Speaker 8] (1:13:32 - 1:13:41)
Absolutely. I'm Matthew Dewless. I'm a part of the Smallscout Police Department.

We have an assistant over there. I do all the liquor licensing for annual and for one day.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:50 - 1:13:58)
Okay. Oh. You'll have your presentation to share right there.

[Speaker 8] (1:14:00 - 1:14:02)
Absolutely. Would you like me to present that now?

[Speaker 1] (1:14:02 - 1:14:03)
Please.

[Speaker 8] (1:14:03 - 1:14:18)
Give me one second. Can you folks see my screen?

[Speaker 4] (1:14:19 - 1:14:19)
Yes.

[Speaker 8] (1:14:20 - 1:15:03)
Okay. So this is the Town of Smallscout Annual Liquor License Renewals PowerPoint. So in October, the renewal packets explaining all procedures and responsibilities are mailed to the retail license holders.

A list of licensees is sent to the building and fire departments. In November, all licensees are required to submit completed packets and annual fees by November 30th. This includes the annual renewal form, the liquor liability insurance form.

All licensees are fingerprinted at the police station. Inspections are completed by the building department, fire department, police department. The building department confirms inspections are complete.

Customer service.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:05 - 1:15:11)
You know what? If it's okay with you, if you could go right to the individual applicants.

[Speaker 8] (1:15:15 - 1:15:18)
Absolutely. This is our quota for the year.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:20 - 1:15:26)
Matt, could you go to... Matt, I'm sorry that we're screwing you up here. We're just trying to expedite it a little bit.

[Speaker 8] (1:15:27 - 1:15:30)
Sure. Which section would you like me to start at? This one showing all the inspections?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:32 - 1:15:35)
Let's go over to license fees.

[Speaker 8] (1:15:36 - 1:15:44)
Okay. Absolutely. So you have the annual fee.

So for restaurant, 12 on premise.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:45 - 1:15:48)
Matt, is there any change to the fees from years prior?

[Speaker 8] (1:15:49 - 1:15:51)
There are no changes from years prior.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:51 - 1:15:54)
Okay, so these are the fees we've been charging for the last, I think...

[Speaker 8] (1:15:54 - 1:15:56)
I believe two to three years, yes.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:57 - 1:16:01)
So maybe we could skip ahead then unless anybody has any questions. Sure.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:04 - 1:16:09)
And this is just the one days. So this is the quota. Am I all set to continue?

[Speaker 1] (1:16:09 - 1:16:12)
Are there changes on the quotas?

[Speaker 8] (1:16:13 - 1:16:31)
There are. So there are a few businesses that have either failed to renew or are closing. So that includes Bertucci's.

I was asked to leave the Hawthorne off of that. So that is also in the total allowed.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:33 - 1:16:38)
The Hawthorne is being left off only because we don't have all the paperwork. We'll follow up on that.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:39 - 1:16:42)
I mean, I personally have all the paperwork, but I thought it was an issue.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:42 - 1:16:45)
I don't have all their paperwork. We're good, Matt. Okay.

[Speaker 8] (1:16:48 - 1:18:59)
So, yeah, I'm sorry, as I was saying. So Bertucci's and the Hawthorne, and there's one other establishment. I'm sorry.

I kind of lost my train of thought there. But there are three establishments that have advocated their license this year. And that is pretty much the only change there.

So you can see there, there are the two missing restaurants. For the restaurant, all alcohol. And the restaurants, wine and malt.

There's one missing there, too. And I can show you here. So Cafe Avelino, they passed Bertucci's, so they closed.

Chai Asian Cuisine, as well as Gourmet Garden. They're under the same ownership group. They were not giving certification of inspection, because the building department did not receive an application or payment.

However, that's not really a big issue, as they can do that after the case. In the instance of Tyerific, they did not have their 2024 signed up. However, they did have their 2023-2022, and they were given their 2024.

Pomona, the fire department had some issues with their inspection, because they needed a key, like a master key, in case there were an emergency. So we're just waiting on that. The VFW Post, they are giving a change of manager.

St. John's of Baptist, same thing. They do have some concerns for St. John's of Baptist. I can't remember exactly what Max told me, but I think it had something to do with a key and being able to gain access to the building.

And then you can see there, Small Street Yacht Club, change of manager. Little Jeep provisions, as we discussed earlier, and the alteration of premise. So there was not a certification of inspection issued for them, because they did not provide an application or payment for that.

However, an inspection was performed by both police and by fire and building, and they did pass that. So upon us kind of clarifying what that situation is going to be, we can either provide the license just for one particular section of the restaurant, or if they're expanding it, presumably do it under both.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:00 - 1:19:03)
Hold on a minute, Matt. We're getting a little bit confused here.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:04 - 1:19:07)
Sure. Partly because our slides aren't the same as what you're showing.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:08 - 1:19:09)
Oh, I'm so sorry.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:11 - 1:19:30)
Maybe can you summarize, if this is helpful, after all this, are you suggesting approval of all of these that we see on the screen right now or just those that don't have a comment in the pending column?

[Speaker 8] (1:19:31 - 1:19:51)
I am recommending them for all. Those with the pending, they're just, like I said, small concerns with the certification of inspection. Max did tell me that they aren't too worried, so I'm going to take them as worried.

Instances of changing manager, that's a pretty easy adjustment, so there's nothing really there.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:53 - 1:19:54)
Wait a minute.

[Speaker 6] (1:19:54 - 1:19:58)
So those change of managers, have they gone through the CORI process or whatever?

[Speaker 2] (1:19:59 - 1:20:00)
They go through the agency.

[Speaker 6] (1:20:00 - 1:20:03)
Right. Is that what's pending or what is pending?

[Speaker 8] (1:20:04 - 1:20:19)
Yeah, that is pending. I just received all those last week, really. A lot of these applications came in pretty much at the last minute.

So I have not had much of an opportunity in addition to do the rest of my job. My assistant has been out, so I've had to do a lot of the day-to-day stuff for the police department.

[Speaker 3] (1:20:20 - 1:20:24)
I guess the question, do we need to approve these tonight, time-wise?

[Speaker 1] (1:20:24 - 1:21:04)
Time-wise, yes. Hold on a minute. What I recommend is we approve the ones that can be approved because they should be, and I don't want to put their license at risk.

And anyone that's pending anything, we just, you know, let's put that on to the next meeting and do whatever we can do to help them out. The only question is, if you're waiting on the changing of a manager, can you keep the existing manager in place so that it doesn't affect their license or revenue and then just change it once you have the paperwork for the new manager? Is that possible?

[Speaker 8] (1:21:04 - 1:21:32)
So there are some instances in which the manager, so like with the VFW post, the manager on file has been dead for about three years now. There were just some issues. I'm not sure as to why.

Again, I only started this position in January, so I'm not sure as to why there was this kind of consistent pushing along of the paperwork. But, I mean, it's really, it's kind of just like a formality.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:32 - 1:21:41)
So is the application in now? And then how long does it take for that application to be approved? Like what's the timing on that?

[Speaker 21] (1:21:42 - 1:21:45)
It's not very long.

[Speaker 8] (1:21:45 - 1:21:56)
Well, again, this is kind of like my first experience with this. Before I understand the reason for the paperwork, I kind of just have to submit it to the ABCC. They offer, or they give a certification to them, and it's just something that they keep for internal records.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:57 - 1:21:59)
Okay. So we'll just jump on that.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:59 - 1:22:05)
So the change in managers, we don't approve the change in managers. The ABCC approves the change in managers, correct?

[Speaker 20] (1:22:06 - 1:22:06)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:07 - 1:22:28)
So I believe that we can support the licenses as they exist pending the change in management, and then as the ABCC approves or disapproves of them, then the condition would either be met or unmet, and then their license could be revoked if the condition is unmet or continue to operate. I don't think there's a reason given.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:28 - 1:22:31)
I think we do play a role in change of managers.

[Speaker 21] (1:22:33 - 1:22:38)
Right. We do. Okay.

I'm sorry for misunderstanding.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:39 - 1:22:47)
But to follow up on that, is it just that Matt hasn't had a chance to process it, that they have their information submitted?

[Speaker 1] (1:22:48 - 1:22:49)
Yes, absolutely.

[Speaker 8] (1:22:49 - 1:22:50)
I have all their applications.

[Speaker 1] (1:22:51 - 1:23:07)
Okay. So why don't we just go down everybody that is all set to go, and then anybody who's not, we put them on next meeting and do whatever can be done to help out to get that processed.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:07 - 1:23:19)
Matt, would you mind putting that slide back up that lists the ones that are good to go? So we can have a motion and list those names?

[Speaker 8] (1:23:19 - 1:23:23)
Absolutely. So I can just start from the beginning. I think it's in alphabetical.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:23 - 1:23:26)
Would you mind just sharing it again? Oh, I'm sorry.

[Speaker 8] (1:23:26 - 1:23:29)
Am I not sharing? Oh, I'm very sorry about that. I thought I was still sharing.

[Speaker 3] (1:23:35 - 1:23:42)
And once you do that, why was it important to approve these tonight versus two weeks from now?

[Speaker 8] (1:23:44 - 1:23:52)
I mean, it just kind of gets things in motion. I had actually proposed that we have this meeting on the 18th anyways because some inspections were behind, and, you know, Steve's not being here anymore.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:53 - 1:24:11)
I wanted to give him a little more time, but I'm sorry about that. Margie asked that we get these on the agenda because in the event we don't have something back and we can't get through until the 18th, their licenses are expired. That as well.

Especially going into Christmas holiday.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:12 - 1:24:16)
So could you just go to the next slide, Matt?

[Speaker 1] (1:24:17 - 1:24:19)
Or there's a couple pending on here.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:20 - 1:24:23)
Oh, I'm sorry. There's two of them. I'm sorry.

You were correct.

[Speaker 8] (1:24:24 - 1:24:24)
I apologize. No worries.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:24 - 1:24:27)
And would you slide show it so we could see it in the whole screen? It's just a little tight.

[Speaker 8] (1:24:27 - 1:24:34)
Absolutely. Yeah, no, I'm sorry for the issues there. I can't really tell what's being presented or not.

Just give me one second to get to that screen.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:34 - 1:24:44)
It's not a problem. There it is right there. Okay.

So then I would motion to approve Cafe Avellino, Chi Asian Cuisine. Wait, let me ask that.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:45 - 1:24:55)
Why is there a yellow thing on Cafe? There's not. It's not on there, though.

It's not yellow. So Cafe Avellino's okay? Yes.

Yeah. Okay. There's nothing pending.

[Speaker 2] (1:24:55 - 1:25:19)
Okay, so Cafe Avellino, Dockside Pub, G Restaurant, Mexicali, Mission on the Bay, New York Haven, Paradiso, Tyrophic by the Sea, Swampscot Club, Burl Street Liquors, Venon Square Liquors, Eris, Express, and Richdale.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:19 - 1:25:46)
I just want to pull out Dockside and then just talk about that separate. So if we could just leave that separate. So on all of the ones that Katie just mentioned minus Dockside, do we have a motion to approve?

I just made the motion. Can we have a second? I will second.

Do we vote to approve them? Yeah, so we have a vote to approve with that amended with Dockside out. All in favor?

[Speaker 9] (1:25:46 - 1:25:47)
Yes. Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:47 - 1:25:59)
Okay, so now just going back to Dockside, does Dockside have a liquor license for different hours? The hours of the liquor license or we're just talking? It's just the liquor license.

[Speaker 3] (1:25:59 - 1:26:00)
This is just the license.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:01 - 1:26:02)
Yeah, I just want to see how that's clear.

[Speaker 3] (1:26:03 - 1:26:04)
Versus the entertainment license, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:04 - 1:26:06)
Right, that's separate. Well, that's different, right?

[Speaker 3] (1:26:06 - 1:26:14)
Right, that's different. The hours thing that I might imagine you're interested in I think comes under the entertainment license.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:14 - 1:26:17)
Yeah, that's where I'm just getting a little...

[Speaker 8] (1:26:17 - 1:26:25)
Not to speak out of turn, but I do believe it is on their liquor license as well that it's until 1 a.m. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:26 - 1:26:33)
I think they have hours on there. Yeah. On all liquor license.

Right. Okay, so I just, I think that...

[Speaker 21] (1:26:33 - 1:26:33)
Oh, it's right here.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:33 - 1:26:34)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:26:34 - 1:26:35)
Oh, it's the entertainment.

[Speaker 19] (1:26:36 - 1:26:37)
Well, the project...

[Speaker 3] (1:26:42 - 1:26:53)
I am happy to go to that section if you want to skip ahead a little bit. Right, but that's the entertainment license. Do you have anything there, Matt, to know that the liquor license has certain hours attached?

[Speaker 8] (1:26:54 - 1:27:14)
I mean, in pulling this, Mary Ellen had made a request. This was either when we did the alteration of premise or sometime in June, sometime before the block party. I think it was July.

I had to look up and pull their liquor license, and I can remember confidently that it said 1 a.m. on there.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:14 - 1:27:20)
Why don't we take the dock side out? Sure.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:21 - 1:27:22)
I'm asking the select board.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:23 - 1:27:23)
It's on there.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:25 - 1:27:29)
It actually is right there. I almost got it. There's a page.

Common Victoria.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:29 - 1:27:44)
Oh, here it is. Well, I have entertainment. So we'll just table all the other liquor licenses.

I'm just saying, should we table dock side so we can have a conversation about it at a later time, or do you folks want to just have a conversation about it tonight? Well, it doesn't seem like we have all the facts to have a conversation about it tonight. Well, we do.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:44 - 1:27:49)
We do. It actually is on the common Victoria license. There's another page that says the hours.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:49 - 1:28:00)
It goes to 1 a.m. So that means the liquor license goes to 1 a.m. Well, that's their common Victoria license, so is that to their liquor license matches that? If they don't close earlier, then if they don't close earlier, then.

[Speaker 6] (1:28:00 - 1:28:06)
Basically, it's their sale hours, right? So they're selling alcohol, so I would assume that it's the same.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:08 - 1:28:11)
I just wonder what the license says, since that's what we're.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:12 - 1:28:23)
Right. And I'd like to know what the license looks like. Is the license also for inside the building, outside the building?

That's why I'm just saying, should we just put this on the side until the next meeting?

[Speaker 8] (1:28:26 - 1:28:31)
If you want to bear with me, I do have a record of it in my e-mail, so I can pull that, but it would take me a few minutes.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:31 - 1:28:31)
Sure.

[Speaker 8] (1:28:32 - 1:28:33)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:33 - 1:29:50)
Is there a reason why we would do that? I don't know. Why, I would have the record?

No, not you. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, the question is, is there an issue with a liquor license until 1 in the morning if the liquor license is also being used outside?

Is there an issue with an establishment that has hours different from other people in the area? Didn't this board approve having that license until 1 a.m.? To be honest with you, this board, what happened was when Dockside went in, Zest Friends was there, and when this board was presented the information, we were presented the information saying that it was the same as what Zest Friends had, and it wasn't the same. We were presented inaccurate information.

And by the time we discovered that, it was a few months, and it wouldn't have been fair to turn around and reverse it at the time. So we said, let's wait and discuss it when we go to renew it. So I think that's the discussion we need to have.

We need to have that discussion now, because it's not in line with other establishments there. Have there been complaints? I don't know the answer to that.

And what's in everybody's best interest here?

[Speaker 5] (1:29:50 - 1:29:55)
So what was the discrepancy in the information that we received? From Zest Friends?

[Speaker 1] (1:29:56 - 1:29:56)
Yes.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:57 - 1:30:17)
I think they only had a license until 11. Even earlier. But I think the question was asked when we spoke about Dockside's application, that it mirrored whatever Zest Friends had.

And at the time, I believe the answer was yes, it mirrored Zest Friends. And then actually come to find out what isn't accurate. They didn't have a license until 1.

[Speaker 15] (1:30:18 - 1:30:20)
I have their license.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:20 - 1:30:28)
It is a Dockside license. The liquor license. Yes, the liquor license.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:29 - 1:30:41)
I think the other thing is likely the proprietor would want to speak on behalf of themselves. Not knowing that we're pulling out a license and just making it unfair.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:42 - 1:30:46)
We should be able to come and answer some questions.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:46 - 1:30:48)
That's why I'd like to add this to the table, I think.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:48 - 1:31:22)
All right, so let's table Dockside. And then we approved the rest of them, the ones that you identified. Yes, that's already done.

And so then what we'll do is we'll put all the ones that we didn't approve on for the 18th. And Matthew, you will work with Marzi or whoever's handling this to make sure that we can get everybody in compliance before the 18th?

[Speaker 8] (1:31:23 - 1:31:23)
Absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:26 - 1:31:30)
All right, so should we move over to the common vicar's license?

[Speaker 3] (1:31:35 - 1:31:37)
Entertainment next.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:38 - 1:31:41)
Not in my packet. This is brutal.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:42 - 1:31:57)
We just did common, right? No, we did not. We just did liquor.

Just did liquor. That's all we did was liquor. I don't think they're different, though.

They are different. Common vicar's license is an additional fee of $100. Yeah, I'm talking about in the packet.

[Speaker 6] (1:31:57 - 1:32:04)
Oh. There's nothing that says liquor. Do you know what I'm saying?

It's not differentiated.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:04 - 1:32:05)
Got it. Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:05 - 1:32:09)
That list you were just reading off of was the common vicar's.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:09 - 1:32:13)
See? Can you go back, Matt, a couple of times?

[Speaker 8] (1:32:13 - 1:32:15)
Absolutely. So this is the liquor license.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:16 - 1:32:23)
Yeah, right. There's nothing that says liquor. Yeah.

So that's the liquor. We actually don't have that in our packet. That's the issue is that we don't have it in the packet.

[Speaker 17] (1:32:23 - 1:32:24)
Oh, I'm sorry. We don't have it in the packet.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:25 - 1:32:25)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:32:25 - 1:32:30)
So now the common vicar's is next in our packet. Okay.

[Speaker 15] (1:32:39 - 1:32:39)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:32:46 - 1:32:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:47 - 1:32:48)
Okay. So. Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:32:48 - 1:32:49)
So on to this one.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:51 - 1:32:51)
All right.

[Speaker 14] (1:32:52 - 1:32:54)
Or that. I don't have it at all.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:55 - 1:33:07)
So it looks like. So it looks like we're, you know, we're only short on five guys, Cookie Monster, and Vertucci. Is that what it is, Matt?

No, keep going.

[Speaker 8] (1:33:08 - 1:33:11)
And I think OYO frozen yogurt is pending too. But yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:11 - 1:33:12)
OYO, Pomona.

[Speaker 8] (1:33:12 - 1:33:14)
Pomona. Renzo's.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:14 - 1:33:14)
Starbucks.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:16 - 1:33:16)
Holy cow.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:17 - 1:33:29)
Right. Okay. So then.

So a motion to approve the, what are labeled as endorsed on the renewal status and the pending.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:29 - 1:33:36)
We will come back to you on the 18th. And what do we do about Dockside here with their timing too? Add it to that.

Yeah.

[Speaker 21] (1:33:36 - 1:33:37)
Pull it. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:37 - 1:33:54)
All right. So we're going to pull out Dockside. And so we just need the motion for all the other businesses that are in black.

Yep. Is that fair to say? We just need the motion.

[Speaker 2] (1:33:54 - 1:34:00)
A motion to approve the endorsed status, Common Vic Drillers License removing Dockside.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:02 - 1:34:05)
Second. Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 21] (1:34:05 - 1:34:05)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:05 - 1:34:06)
So moved.

[Speaker 9] (1:34:06 - 1:34:08)
Okay. Second. Now to entertainment.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:09 - 1:34:10)
Now to entertainment.

[Speaker 2] (1:34:21 - 1:34:27)
It looks like all the entertainment licenses, all the status for the entertainment license is up to date, Matt.

[Speaker 8] (1:34:28 - 1:34:31)
I believe so. Marissa hasn't told me otherwise.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:32 - 1:35:04)
All right. So I have to tell you, Matt, if you're not sure, let's just take this out, okay? And we'll move it to the 18th because we really need to make sure you're sure.

All right. All right. So we're going to table entertainment license.

Okay. Now the Class 2 license for the motor. What is this?

Just for motor? Class 2 license renewal.

[Speaker 8] (1:35:07 - 1:35:17)
So we just have the two businesses. It's Four Seasons Motor Group, LLC, which is on 460 Humphrey Street, and then the Paradise Auto Sales, which is on 219 Paradise Road.

[Speaker 21] (1:35:18 - 1:35:19)
All right. Okay. All right.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:19 - 1:35:29)
Matt, do you know if the Police Department received any... I know they conduct an annual inspection, but if they received any complaints this year for either applicant about...

[Speaker 8] (1:35:29 - 1:35:35)
I was not informed of anything outstanding. I was told that they passed their inspections and there was no issue with them.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:35 - 1:35:48)
Okay. Thanks. Okay.

So can we have a motion to accept the Class 2 license renewals on Four Seasons Motor and Paradise Auto Sales?

[Speaker 21] (1:35:48 - 1:35:49)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:49 - 1:35:52)
Second? Second. Discussion?

[Speaker 3] (1:35:54 - 1:36:19)
I have to say, the Four Seasons Motorplace, it would be the exception, I think, when they have six vehicles there. There's kind of overflowing in typical fashion. So I guess I'd be happy to move forward, but I'd like to kind of ask the Police Department to ensure that they're adhering to the terms of their license.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:36:20 - 1:36:37)
Yeah. I think in years past, the explanation has been that those cars are in for repair and not for sale. I don't know if that holds true for...

They never seem to leave. Maybe they need more repair. Right.

All right.

[Speaker 3] (1:36:39 - 1:36:44)
Well... That was the second, I think, or... Are you guys second?

Are you...

[Speaker 1] (1:36:44 - 1:36:44)
Yep.

[Speaker 21] (1:36:44 - 1:36:46)
With that question.

[Speaker 1] (1:36:46 - 1:37:07)
So who's second? I did. All in favor?

Aye. All right. Okay.

Now to the warrant. To the warrant.

[Speaker 9] (1:37:07 - 1:37:35)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:35 - 1:37:39)
So starting with the warrant here.

[Speaker 21] (1:37:44 - 1:37:46)
There's the warrant. Huh?

[Speaker 3] (1:37:46 - 1:37:52)
It was a separate thing, kind of attached. Maybe under the petition? No, it's separate.

[Speaker 15] (1:37:54 - 1:37:56)
It's paper. Okay.

[Speaker 21] (1:38:02 - 1:38:06)
Yeah, I got it.

[Speaker 5] (1:38:06 - 1:38:07)
I got it.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:08 - 1:38:37)
Well, I have my actual warrant. I can just work off of my warrant. Oh, never mind.

I have your additional stuff here. All right. So we're here.

So let's start with article one.

[Speaker 3] (1:38:38 - 1:38:41)
So we're going through and taking votes. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:42 - 1:38:44)
Why don't we do that? And if there's something we can't recommend...

[Speaker 3] (1:38:49 - 1:38:55)
So I would move to the select board support article one. Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:38:56 - 1:39:12)
All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Diane, you have that? Yep. Okay.

All right. Article two, to appropriate the operating budget and collective bargaining for the AFSME.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:13 - 1:39:16)
I move to have the select board support article two. Second.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:17 - 1:39:18)
All in favor? Aye.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:22 - 1:39:26)
I move to have the select board support article three.

[Speaker 1] (1:39:26 - 1:39:29)
Okay. Let's just make... Just because the public is there...

[Speaker 3] (1:39:29 - 1:39:37)
transfer free cash for the homeless foster care transportation fund basically just moving funds that come into the town over the school budget

[Speaker 5] (1:39:38 - 1:39:44)
would just we'd be able to put the art of the warrant on the on the screen please

[Speaker 3] (1:39:49 - 1:41:08)
I know if you heard that Diane is there any chance your anyone's able to put the warrant up Amy's working on it okay all right while we're waiting for people's knowledge article to first one was about just approving bills from prior year prior fiscal years that hadn't been paid that had to be caught up on the second one is amend appropriation for fiscal year 2025 operating budget due to a collective bargaining agreement that was signed with council 93 local 2610 that we had prior priorly approved but needs additional funding up to article

[Speaker 1] (1:41:08 - 1:41:08)
three Amy

[Speaker 3] (1:41:13 - 1:42:37)
okay so I moved select board approve recommend a court recommend approval of article three second all in favor hi article four all right so this one I think we should chat about yeah we should read out loud so article four is a final settlement on the eminent domain taking the Unitarian Church of the school and it says to see if the town will vote to transfer from available funds or borrow some of money to pay damages associated with the eminent domain taking a property located 101 Forest Avenue assessor's parcel 23 e o e zero sorry in full and final settlement of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Greater Lynn versus town Essex Superior Court case etc etc so this article will provide funding for a final settlement above reference manner which pertains to a permanent easement taken by eminent domain for the new elementary school construction project and so we have a actual dollar amount on this now which is not in the warrant but this dollar

[Speaker 1] (1:42:37 - 1:42:46)
amount has been sent out to all town meeting members we sent it to the moderator and we put it on the town website so I believe the moderator

[Speaker 4] (1:42:46 - 1:42:50)
distributed it to all town meeting members I know he is on the meeting

[Speaker 1] (1:42:50 - 1:43:09)
tonight he needs to correct that okay and this this number in here this these are all the associated legal costs updated when was the last time this was updated on Monday Monday mm-hmm did you have a conversation with them just to make sure I'm still waiting to hear back from one but yes I had the conversation

[Speaker 4] (1:43:09 - 1:43:15)
with the other firm okay so the total request is four hundred and ninety

[Speaker 3] (1:43:15 - 1:43:40)
thousand six hundred ninety eight dollars which four hundred fifty thousand is the principal payment there's almost ten thousand dollars in projected interest and almost thirty one thousand dollars in legal costs I think some people that are maybe more familiar with it than me should kind of maybe give some background and context to you know why this was a good

[Speaker 1] (1:43:40 - 1:45:51)
settlement well what I can comment on is just so people understand the initial payment to the UU was for the taking of the easement we gave them what they call a pro tanto payment which was five hundred thousand dollars following that five hundred thousand dollars the UU sued the town and so this is this is the settlement for that lawsuit you have to remember so when you when you take by him in domain you're you as a taker are saying how much you feel that is valued at and then you as the person who's being taken says no we want a little bit more in this situation there was an issue with the actual taking and then through serious negotiations we were able to get the number to the the 450 principal the UU Church wanted the money earlier and we have no way of accessing money other than calling a special town meeting and the UU insisted on an interest so the interest that they charged was nine thousand eight hundred and thirty eight thirty six and our legal costs we have to had very special attorneys handle this and our legal costs show that does that's that's it in a nutshell I think and then the source of these funds is will be free cash and so the source of the funds will be free cash but we have funding funds coming in from National Grid and the actual what what is the term of those funds Amy I keep forgetting what we call them it's the energy rebate yeah energy rebate so the original five hundred thousand was paid out of the new school building they didn't have any funding left for the new school building but with this money that's coming in from National Grid we're going to be able to refill the free cash coffers with this money that is attributed to the new elementary

[Speaker 5] (1:45:51 - 1:45:55)
school exactly and and do we have a timing as to when those funds will hit

[Speaker 1] (1:45:55 - 1:46:13)
the general fund yeah enough to cover this very the leading robbing Peter to pay Paul here so this this week this free cash that's coming in okay so it's

[Speaker 3] (1:46:13 - 1:46:19)
just a yeah okay maybe even doesn't even have to free cash well because it

[Speaker 2] (1:46:19 - 1:46:55)
gets classified yeah so that is to say I mean just to be clear that the National Grid funds are coming in because of the work done at the school to be energy efficient and the grants that were already issued to the school so even though the cash is coming out of the general coffers for the time being the replenishment will come from the school initiated yeah programming so it's not as if the town is paying for this solely the school is actually reimbursing through its grant programming so it's a wash it's a wash it's a wash actually in

[Speaker 1] (1:46:55 - 1:47:05)
that positive okay so can we have a motion to approve article for second second all in favor

[Speaker 4] (1:47:12 - 1:47:31)
article five not gonna be so Finance Committee has obviously not discussed or voted on this yet so it's up to you if you want to wait till they do on Monday and do a vote simultaneously or if you feel comfortable voting on this

[Speaker 1] (1:47:31 - 1:47:36)
we normally always wait for income but I'll be honest with you I'm but it's

[Speaker 3] (1:47:36 - 1:47:47)
actually I just realized income vote on any of these yet yes okay all the ones we've done we've already done they voted on great thank you and they did they

[Speaker 1] (1:47:47 - 1:47:55)
didn't vote on the 800 because Eric said that they were in support of the eight on they were in support of it but because the number wasn't final yet they

[Speaker 4] (1:47:55 - 1:48:00)
didn't want to take a formal vote all right okay motion to table article 5

[Speaker 1] (1:48:00 - 1:48:11)
until Monday mm-hmm okay so article 6 are we gonna table that because are we waiting on CIC yeah he's meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. okay so we're gonna

[Speaker 3] (1:48:11 - 1:48:37)
table this article 7 okay so these are two technical articles requested by concom yeah but here to state law we have some option not to take up article

[Speaker 1] (1:48:37 - 1:49:22)
7 yes so with article 7 like you should present these you know I'm at the end of my rope there yeah so with articles with article 7 it seems that we're not there's a good chance we're not gonna have to really have this article why not because we looks like the clerk has indicated that article 3 of the 2009 annual town meeting also sought to accept this section was approved by majority vote by town meeting according to the annual report from that year therefore the article can be passed over so hopefully we're gonna just pass over this one however when we move to has that information been shared with

[Speaker 2] (1:49:22 - 1:49:30)
has that information been shared with about I just want to make sure that they

[Speaker 1] (1:49:30 - 1:49:53)
know we're not okay so then we go to article 8 and this we are gonna have to vote on and this basically is an article set up so that if they have somebody missing that or they have to fill in people to vote state statute requires us they can't just have a auxiliary person state statute requires that we have

[Speaker 3] (1:49:53 - 1:50:00)
something in the in our bylaws so I would I would move for the select board

[Speaker 1] (1:50:00 - 1:50:16)
to support article 8 all in favor okay and Katie you're gonna take care of talking to Tony on this sure okay now to article 9 this is where you break out

[Speaker 3] (1:50:16 - 1:51:24)
your sandwiches very straightforward article 9 see if the town will vote to amend towns general bylaws article 9 use of land at a new section 8 title preventing demolition by neglect of swamp Scots historically significant structures and buildings set forth in appendix a and the purpose of this by law is to ensure necessary maintenance for the preservation of certain historically significant buildings and structures from the elements neglect or a lack of repair which may leave the building or structure vulnerable to demolition by the elements so this certainly was kind of initially thought of as a way to help address short-term needs with at the Glover property but we've received information from Town Council that we may have similar powers already existing in our bylaws or in state statute but it has been recommended that for best practice like other communities have that we do proceed to adopt this bylaw

[Speaker 2] (1:51:26 - 1:51:32)
do we we figure out what we have versus what we're getting what the difference

[Speaker 3] (1:51:32 - 1:52:14)
is all I can say is that Town Council suggested that there's certainly no harm in adopting this and potentially depending on circumstances down the road maybe this bylaw gives us a slight different power or authority and what we've existing our existing authorities so but they're not clear about what that's like no changes yeah they couldn't say okay other communities have adopted it for this type of purpose because they also have the same authority we already do on the books but have also adopted this so I have to

[Speaker 1] (1:52:14 - 1:52:53)
tell you I received a call from a member of the planning board who felt that this type of a bylaw could actually put a burden on a property owner who was trying to sell their property put a if a lien was to put on it another another question came up today from somebody saying that how are you gonna force someone to fix up their building or who who's gonna assume the burden of fixing it does that mean the town is going to assume the burden of it or what happens

[Speaker 3] (1:52:53 - 1:53:34)
it both with the existing authority we have and under this is that this basically would require the select board or the building commissioner or the health director to deem this a demolition by neglect situation and that you take it to court and this gets resolved actually in this situation very quickly and I'm not acting as if I've been through this but this is what I'm told and then the town is actually able to make the necessary kind of minor maintenance to protect the building and those costs then can be assessed on the

[Speaker 5] (1:53:35 - 1:53:48)
owner so they would so the so the cost would be capitalized included on the tax bill exactly on conveyance the town would then collect whatever that expenditure was plus whatever the statutory interest rate exactly would

[Speaker 2] (1:53:48 - 1:54:25)
be it's on their annual tax bill or it's just leaned against it would be a against the property right oh okay so the town's paying and then when they sell it and this right belongs to us or what the right to do that you said it would be deemed neglect by our demolition demolition by neglect yeah by the Health Department the select board or the building commissioner so what's the historic Commission's historical Commission's role I think

[Speaker 3] (1:54:25 - 1:54:36)
they would they would be advising what's a historically significant building and bringing it up to us or the health director or the building commissioner to

[Speaker 1] (1:54:36 - 1:54:40)
take action and there's an actual term for historic there's a oh yeah thank you

[Speaker 2] (1:54:40 - 1:55:30)
because in the procedure they're the ones doing the noticing and everything historic historical Commission where you point to so like d2 historic Commission notices the public hearing and post the date of time and the property owner in the event that the historical Commission determines a building or structure is undergoing demolition by neglect the historic Commission prior to ordering any necessary maintenance and repairs must find must find the loss of distinct characteristics of the building or structure would be detrimental to the history of Swampscott so I just don't see our right here like like our active participation here it seems more like yeah or any other person in that three channels right yeah I think this is

[Speaker 3] (1:55:30 - 1:56:00)
where I'm not gonna try to you know reproduce the KP law conversation but there's some interplay between what's already in the books and this what's already in the books is more about FLEC board health director and building commissioner I think from their perspective you have a relatively straightforward path already with that so that's what I was really speaking to sorry if that was confusing this is kind of that complementary piece another

[Speaker 2] (1:56:00 - 1:56:20)
approach to it so then if I'm going down the wrong path just tell me to stop but so right now we already have on the books the rights for the building commissioner ourselves and the one other channel and we're adding the addition of the historic Commission to that so now they would have the right to

[Speaker 1] (1:56:20 - 1:56:27)
do this also I'm not sure where that's really where is that where is that clear

[Speaker 2] (1:56:27 - 1:57:15)
d2 procedure okay yeah so the procedure the onus of this process is the historical Commission's prerogative at this point in this bylaw so the historical Commission post the meetings they help post the public notice they are the ones who determine if the building although they are there it doesn't look like they're the ones who determine the demolition by neglect they determine if it's loss of distinct characteristics of the building or structure would be detrimental to the history of the town of Swampscott and then it says the historic historical Commission may also consult with the building commissioner may not must regarding the need for and the nature

[Speaker 3] (1:57:15 - 1:57:23)
of any maintenance or repairs right I think in this in this the only place the

[Speaker 1] (1:57:23 - 1:57:46)
select board comes in is in the appeal in the enforcement right right so should this bylaws sorry yeah should this bylaw really be on the spring town meeting so there's more public input on this or if we already have a mechanism in place we

[Speaker 3] (1:57:46 - 1:58:06)
did raise that question with KP law all I can do is repeat what I've said before they saw no harm in doing this other communities have done it I grant that there doesn't feel incredibly compelling and critical at this moment but also it doesn't feel as though there's any harm so you know when we were meeting with

[Speaker 1] (1:58:06 - 1:58:14)
Tom today did you walk away feeling like Tom thought if there's no harm because I walked away thinking I walked away feeling like he was like why bother

[Speaker 3] (1:58:21 - 1:58:32)
$100,000 they were going to demo the building in three months right but that's our choice at that point right

[Speaker 2] (1:58:38 - 1:58:51)
is it our choice or is it who gets first choice right is it historic Commission well the historic Commission would have the first choice and then we would it comes to us it would come to us and we would decide whether or not and

[Speaker 1] (1:58:51 - 1:59:06)
does that mean the historic Commission the historic Commission can go in and do this houses that happen to be a hundred years old right I mean well the anybody's home the financial impact is is the question that I have here Oh Amy

[Speaker 4] (1:59:07 - 1:59:47)
I'd also like to say that if this went if this passed and we were sending our facilities director or our building inspector in to make these repairs there would need to be an appropriation prior to that happening so even if this was passed if there is no you know funding set up to allow for repairs to ignore historically significant properties of an amount of money then those can't even move forward until that funding is there yeah I guess the other thing I

[Speaker 2] (1:59:47 - 2:00:22)
was I thought was part of this but maybe I'm now maybe I misunderstood was that it would be at the onus on the owner to do the repairs and what we are doing the repairs I worry just from a liability perspective if something were to happen after the fact or now we're on a third parties property and we've done right something and somebody got hurt or so whatever but I thought we were just forcing the owner to do it so no my understanding is we're doing it and then

[Speaker 1] (2:00:22 - 2:00:27)
we're waiting yeah yeah dog what's your understanding on that well you look I

[Speaker 3] (2:00:27 - 2:01:35)
mean it's very likely to happen here right if you got a historical Commission does all this stuff in the beginning yeah it's extremely likely someone's going to appeal right they're not going to just say oh you know after all this time obviously there's probably a conversation beforehand they're going to appeal that's going to come to the select board like board may institute and authorize any and all proceedings in law or equity to enforce this bylaw and any other determination issued here under in the event that a court order that the town may undertake any work here under that's where I was talking about it would go to court town shall seek payment from the owner for the cost of that work and any related court costs and attorney's fees the owner failed to promptly pay those amounts upon demand by the town the town may treat these costs as a local charge pursuant to general law chapter 40 no I mean I'm I'm here as the liaison of the historical Commission and you know it's unfortunate that you guys are having a conversation with Tom about this and then there was a separate conversation with Tom there's actually no no actually

[Speaker 1] (2:01:35 - 2:01:39)
we had to go over the warrant yeah and that's you know you don't know I brought

[Speaker 3] (2:01:39 - 2:01:55)
it up but they have a specialized lawyer that we actually talked to or I didn't Nancy did and that's where this that's what I'm sharing with you their perspective so what we could do at this point you say what you just said again

[Speaker 2] (2:01:55 - 2:02:02)
about the people on oh they hired their own lawyer no no no has a specialized

[Speaker 3] (2:02:02 - 2:02:06)
specialized lawyer in this type of work which is who Nancy talked to which

[Speaker 1] (2:02:06 - 2:02:49)
is what I'm sharing okay I'm sorry I just didn't know who Nancy so we could the only hiccup that I'm having here is if we already have a mechanism in place I guess I'm just looking at this like why and I know you're saying okay it'll give us a little bit more security but I I think that I'm concerned that there are other issues here it's exactly what Amy confirmed is is the financing if we turn around and say hey you've got to fix this and they're like no and that means we have to come in and fix it and that would come out of well there are you know come out of a maintenance line item at a DPW or something and well I mean in

[Speaker 3] (2:02:49 - 2:03:11)
the near term we have our money for example for something like this as it stands today in the future yes we have to figure out how it gets paid for but again the select board would be in control of deciding whether or not to proceed with something like this it's worth it at that moment that would be

[Speaker 6] (2:03:11 - 2:03:15)
the decision yeah because anybody's gonna appeal no one would just just

[Speaker 3] (2:03:15 - 2:03:18)
undertake it and if they don't appeal then they're just gonna do the work so

[Speaker 2] (2:03:18 - 2:03:30)
this like you know the town's not actually paying so well I guess there's a third scenario where they don't appeal and they don't do the work and then we have to go in and do the work on their behalf and we don't have to well

[Speaker 6] (2:03:30 - 2:03:35)
we okay this gives us the ability to but I think we already have the ability to

[Speaker 3] (2:03:35 - 2:03:58)
do what I would suggest here is that I would ask that we just maybe not take a vote it's not ready to take a vote and let this be you know up to the Historical Commission if they want to present this you know a couple slides or whatever at town meeting to discuss the benefits of this I think by town charter we need to

[Speaker 1] (2:03:58 - 2:04:15)
take a position you would need to take a position before town meeting starts thank you on Monday we can't just report on it at town meeting well we'd have to take the vote oh we have to take the vote before town meeting let's take the vote we have to take a position and we'd have to do that at the meeting that

[Speaker 5] (2:04:15 - 2:04:20)
we have just before town meeting so why don't we table an address with along

[Speaker 1] (2:04:20 - 2:04:27)
with article 5 and article 6 is everybody good that we're just going to

[Speaker 2] (2:04:27 - 2:04:42)
table it sure so if the Historical Commission has some slides yeah they've

[Speaker 3] (2:04:42 - 2:04:55)
can we be in touch with I haven't seen them but the idea was to do a little couple minutes with and communicate with the town moderator about that just

[Speaker 1] (2:04:55 - 2:06:23)
thinking maybe we could get them before Monday sure we're gonna because we're gonna that's a limited amount of time in that meeting on Monday for us right absolutely okay okay so now let's move to a discussion and vote to approve the land deposition agreement ground lease for 10 New Ocean Street and 1224 Prime Street all right so we have had a good amount of discussion on this we have had the ground lease and the LDA sent to us multiple times with instructions to get back to Marsy in case there's any issues or concerns the last possible concern was the language of making sure that we were a priority when it came to seeking finances so at this point we will we're gonna have to take a vote just a just a question so we're in

[Speaker 5] (2:06:23 - 2:06:34)
we're in possession of a town meeting citizens petition dated December 3rd is there any possible way that this could be included in the warrant so we can

[Speaker 1] (2:06:34 - 2:06:57)
address this on Monday no because that would have had to been in the warrant two weeks ago that this article here or this petition here we will have will be we will have to call a special town meeting okay so does it make does it

[Speaker 5] (2:06:57 - 2:07:03)
make sense for us to do this all at one time rather than to do this and to call

[Speaker 1] (2:07:03 - 2:08:27)
town meeting back twice we need to we we need to make a decision now so that we can send this in with our ARPA or what do you call our ARPA certification Amy the ARPA obligation or ARPA ARPA obligations you know we've been working on this since we've been discussing this since January not last January the January before and it's really clear there are many people that are upset about all different versions of this I can tell you that I I don't want to be in this position of making this vote whatsoever this is the last place I want to be this is the last type of a decision I even want to make but unfortunately that's that's the role that that's the role that we're in so we have heard from a lot of people in public comment we've spoken about it here we have the we have the LDA we have the ground lease and I think it's time to make a decision and to take a vote so I'd like to know I'd like to know if I

[Speaker 2] (2:08:27 - 2:08:33)
can have a motion didn't somebody say something no no I'd like to take a

[Speaker 1] (2:08:33 - 2:08:59)
motion to accept the the ground lease and the LDA as proposed in our latest in our latest version I can have a I'll make the motion but I'd like to have discussion yeah so do we have a second second now discussion so I just I

[Speaker 2] (2:08:59 - 2:09:29)
actually have a clarification point for Amy because it's come up some of the open comments where let's stop let's sort of go back to the drawing board or go back to a new RFP I mean we multiple points in the process people would like to go back to can you explain the position we're in tonight and why that is problematic in the domino effect that that produces yeah so that is

[Speaker 4] (2:09:30 - 2:10:05)
conceptually wholly possible you would however need to go to town meeting to borrow the 1.76 million dollars and then you would need to revote that ARPA money for a different purpose and have a contract signed for that in the next 26 days so there's no way to utilize the ARPA funds for the purchase of that property and not take a vote and have some sort of contractually binding agreement that says that this property will be affordable housing to have it

[Speaker 2] (2:10:05 - 2:10:26)
still qualify under ARPA okay and if we went to town meeting and allocated funds with the hurdle would still be as I understand what you just explained that we would have to reallocate those 1.8 million dollars to something else before the end of the year or we would lose the benefit of that 1.8 million dollars yeah

[Speaker 4] (2:10:26 - 2:10:49)
so you would because you already signed the purchase and sale so you would basically have to replenish this money pay it from the new borrowing and then you would have to vote it under another ARPA approved purpose and have a contract signed so it would have to be something that wouldn't have to go through any procurement because there isn't enough timeline to go through a

[Speaker 2] (2:10:49 - 2:12:52)
procurement process at this point okay so putting the 1.8 million ARPA problem aside the issue that we already signed a purchase and sale agreement and bought the property the the reason that we did those things is because we voted at town meeting to and we had the authority to do so I think it there were two articles one to obtain the parcel and the other and the other one to dispose of the parcels yeah so can they thank you so when we sign the purchase and sale agreement did we have the right to do so as advised by town meeting yes okay so I just think it's important because this is not perfect and nobody's presenting it as a perfection and in listening to all the imperfections I feel the stress of the position that we're in is that we have to take all of those imperfections and then all the other factors that are not the worry of any of you all and still facilitate something or else we lose out on potentially two million dollars of ARPA and then we have a two million dollar tax burden that we're putting on the folks of Swampscott for a parcel which now doesn't have a purpose and could sit vacant for a period of time unknown so I just want to say it is not that it does sound so easy to just say well let's walk away and try again it's not quite that easy and yeah I just wanted to make that point to clarify some of the things that had been said prior I just I just have

[Speaker 5] (2:12:52 - 2:13:52)
to push back on the on the on the sense of binding on the sense of you know having to do this LDA tonight I just I think the town in good faith is working through a process the town's working through you know we we acquired the property we issued an RFP we are moving towards the creation of affordable housing there is an interested partner we are still negotiating I just I see this as we are in compliance with ARPA we are moving forward in good faith we are working towards you know towards this I just don't see the deadline of tonight or of 1231 additionally we have a citizen's petition article in front of us which we're gonna have to call it a meeting a town a special town meeting

[Speaker 1] (2:13:52 - 2:14:00)
within 45 days actually within I don't think that petition that petition calls for a meeting for 45 days

[Speaker 5] (2:14:03 - 2:16:43)
thought that was in thought I'd read that here okay but proposed article language to see if the town will vote to revoke all authority to convey any properties granted by the Swampscott town Swampscott town meeting to this Swampscott select board pursuant to article 11 of the 2023 town of Swampscott annual town meeting warrant warrant seeks one article seeks to revoke the authority previously granted to the select board to sell or lease property located at 10 New Ocean Street site of the VFW post 1240 and 12 to 24 Pine Street the passenger this one article will provide the opportunity for the select board to share with Swampscott town meeting their current intentions regarding the future of VFW post 1240 in these important properties and to receive feedback from town meeting members additionally we're in possession of a letter from the Attorney General of Massachusetts his office regarding a regarding a regarding a complaint that was filed against our board where potentially the Attorney General can reverse any decision that we make about this so we have multiple issues I certainly I certainly understand miss feelings point about the 1.7 plus million dollars of ARPA funds that were expended again I don't think that this is I just I think that we're we're showing good faith and we're moving forward with an RFP and we have an interested party on the line I believe that that suffices that's that's my opinion furthermore I think we have a credibility issue I think we're gonna we're gonna call a special town meeting where town meeting is going to weigh in as to this this matter so in and the Attorney General there's a complaint against our board the Attorney General could reverse any decision that we're making so I don't see how in good faith we can we can call for a vote and make a vote tonight with all of these various issues kind of lingering overhead I just don't I just don't see it I think it would be irresponsible and reckless for this board to make this decision tonight I really think we should take a deep breath and I think we should revisit this this is gonna be something that is going to exist for decades and I think we need to make sure that we as a town we as a select board get this right we need to get this right we can't we can't do this because it's because there's a there's a a real or perceived deadline we need to make sure that this is this is done and this is this is done

[Speaker 1] (2:16:43 - 2:19:14)
properly I think that the issue that we have here is when when it was perceived that we would have a five-plus story building on a lot and the VFW next to it it was good to go everything was was fine ready to go the problem now is when we're looking at having a three-story gonna be five it's there's no scenario or four it was four stories in the picture four stories have to be elevated and then the mechanics have to go on top and that's not just don't do that so having a extremely large building one story difference and then having the VFW next to it if you could let me finish then you can go VFW next to it that to me that was that was fine that was good to go then now we have a smaller smaller building used on both lots that was voted on at town meeting town meeting did give us that approval and then having the VFW relocated into 89 Burroughs Street the entire building which is a larger building building it out with the canteen at no expense to the VF no expense to the VFW and giving them a lease so they can be there with no capital expenses that means no expenses so right now where the VFW is they have to put on a new roof put in new mechanics take care of leaks that are going on by going into 89 Burroughs Street that financial burden is gone so it's there's no good solution here there's just not it's it's about working to just make the best of what we can what we can do the other thing is 40 units of affordable housing for veterans I think really needs to be our priority and continuing to kick this can down the road it doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever so I respect your opinions but I think it's time now I think this is time and I think the town meeting did give us the authority and unfortunately town meeting is also saying we need to make the hard choices so let's so can we go back to this ARPA

[Speaker 3] (2:19:14 - 2:19:20)
thing have you received a written opinion about this timing issue it's for

[Speaker 4] (2:19:20 - 2:19:43)
the entirety of ARPA if we don't have signed contracts by December 30th of this year then the obligation gets turned back to the government sorry the non-obligated funds gets returned what's that the non-obligated funds get returned so basically we would get assessed the 1.76 million and have to turn it back

[Speaker 6] (2:19:49 - 2:21:18)
Daniel so as long as I've been on this board which is since May 1st I have listened to my colleagues up here discuss this issue ad nauseam okay this isn't a new thing this isn't something that just came about a week ago a month ago in secret in collusion none of that right and it was something I walked into that was already approved right it was already something that you already purchased you guys already allocated this ARPA money so I cannot fathom how we can turn around and say 1.7 million you're out the 15,000 people that live here you're gonna pay it you're gonna pay back that money how do we sit here in good faith and say that how do we kiss away 40 units 41 42 units of veteran preference affordable housing that's what it is it's a veteran preference it's not just for veterans it's for it's affordable housing for seniors for veterans it's affordable housing right which every so many people in this town say we badly need we need housing for seniors we need housing for veterans right so how do we how do we do that how do you just in good faith say 1.7 million stop this process right now you 15,000 people figure out where you're gonna get that 1.7 how do I do that in good faith what's the easy answer there

[Speaker 1] (2:21:18 - 2:21:29)
so what is an option excuse me we don't we don't have public comment we had public comment in the beginning and before so thank you so what's an option

[Speaker 6] (2:21:31 - 2:23:52)
89 Beryl Street is an option why is it a bad option why is it an awful option when this town is offering to pick up the expense of it build it out make sure there's a nice bar make sure there's a nice kitchen make sure that there's more space there than there currently is that's what I'm being told okay why is that bad because of the parking okay the parking is a real concern absolutely what can we do about parking what can we do to make it a palatable option right it's a it's become a divisive issue of either yay or nay right but there's got to be a middle we have to figure out a middle because I don't know where we come up with 1.7 million I just I have no idea I'm listening to lawyers we've had more legal opinions on this than I can count right who have told us the same thing that our town accountant just told us so do we just ignore it and say okay sorry we have to stop we have to listen to a petition of 200 people right by a member of the Finance Committee who's telling us I don't know where you're gonna get that 1.7 but I don't care well we have to care right because what do we do what do we just say sorry you got it let me just add it to your tax bill then what is everyone gonna say to us what's wrong with these people why did they why did they piss that money away that's what they're gonna say right so we can't win anyway you cut it we're in a crappy spot that's neither here nor there but at this point this is not you know something that just came about last week ever since I stepped foot on this board we've done tours I've heard about tours I've heard from the town administrator that you know reach arts is a good option the Italian Club was a good option now all of a sudden nothing's a good option the only option is to stop the project right now no one on this board said in May June July or August stop not a single one of the five people sitting here but all of a sudden now in November I'm told well no we have to stop well David where were you in Maine in June in July when you were giving tours to different you know the veterans groups of different properties in town what what what changed from that point to now where we are under the gun we have 20 days left in the in the year or we lose this money like what I don't understand I just am

[Speaker 5] (2:23:52 - 2:24:15)
baffled no well nothing changed about my position I've met with I've met with the veterans I've met with quartermaster Emerton and I met with the commander Nelson Leon numerous times probably dozens of times over the last two years my position hasn't changed here the position of the rest of the board of

[Speaker 6] (2:24:15 - 2:26:11)
three members of the board has has changed to talk about that right so we first voted and it was four to one right let's call it let's let's get it out there let's be honest it was four to one right Katie and I voted with you two right and unbeknownst to me that it was a flood zone unbeknownst to me that a member of the planning board came before us and said no way you can't do it it's gonna be four and a half stories tall you're gonna have to put HVAC on the on the roof right concerns from people in that neighborhood about the size of it so once you get all the information yeah I have the right to change my mind if I don't think I'm doing the right thing I'm not gonna double down on it and just say well you know what I'm gonna just vote how I vote no I vote with an educated decision so yeah I absolutely did change my vote and you know what in May and in June when you toured the veterans around reach arts and you toured them around the Italian Club those were options on the table right and you told us that they could work you you told us that the veterans were not opposed to reach arts and they weren't opposed to the Italian Club so I'm thinking this isn't that bad this is okay they're open to it and we can do it and make everybody happy let's do it so that was all you voted to go into executive session in May in June in July in August in September in October didn't bother you that we were having executive sessions but all of a sudden now it does now because the vote is different and now because we've heard more information that Sean Fitzgerald didn't give us okay that I personally did and I had no idea that was a flood zone I had no idea the HVAC needed to go on the roof and why would I know exactly but I didn't know that would change that we were putting it on this roof and then it was gonna change the height of it the

[Speaker 5] (2:26:11 - 2:26:24)
flood zone has been a has been a known issue not not by this person not by this person who just got on the board it wasn't an early it was literally in in the responses to the RFPs which I would have never saw because I wasn't on this

[Speaker 6] (2:26:24 - 2:26:27)
board it was a public document well why would I have looked at that David I

[Speaker 5] (2:26:28 - 2:26:35)
wasn't on the board you were you were running you were running for sorry boarding this was it and this was this was an issue no I'm just like we're

[Speaker 6] (2:26:35 - 2:26:58)
just understood in all the time that you were the chairman of the board the number of executive sessions were had who's ever questioned how many times you went into executive session we've never questioned it when Peter was the head of the board when anybody else was the chair of the board no one ever questions the number of executive sessions all of a sudden Mary Ellen Fletcher's the chair and we're gonna question how many times she's gone into executive session I find

[Speaker 1] (2:26:58 - 2:27:20)
that curious I find it politically based and I think it's bullshit all right so why don't listen we've we have all we have all said our piece not once but twice and it's getting late and now we're gonna vote I just you didn't say

[Speaker 2] (2:27:20 - 2:28:15)
no I asked since it's been brought to the public the four to one vote and the three to two vote and now it's been discussed here in open session when I voted to support in the four to one vote what what I said when I voted is I am voting to support this because I support veterans housing being built in Swampscott we thought that was the only option that is why I supported that I did not want to see this project die at the finish line I made that clear to all my colleagues that that was why I was part of that four to one vote so if there's another option on the table I agree with Danielle I have a right to say okay now I have two options I didn't that was the only option on the

[Speaker 3] (2:28:15 - 2:28:52)
table at the time so I'd like to there's a lot of technicalities we can get into here get into here and debate for the moment I'll accept the timeline issue I do think that there's an issue about what the article was and whether or not the post needs to be there and we can debate that I think it's very we have

[Speaker 1] (2:28:52 - 2:28:56)
legal we have we have legal comment on that did you you know we have a

[Speaker 3] (2:28:56 - 2:30:35)
ridiculous legal I would I would welcome but we can we can we can you know it's like it just won't be productive right so I'm trying to I'm trying to figure out a productive path here that moves us forward but doesn't over commit us because you know obviously this isn't like the hotel you know we were unanimous on that it's a big project it's really important that we find a path to work together and you know the the differences of perspective here it's not going to be good for anyone this is going to take a long time to go through this process it's not going to be good for the developer with Margie I spoke with them yesterday like this is this is we're building veterans housing and we're pissing off the people that we think we're helping I don't think anyone feels great about that right it feels to me like there must be there must be some other way to solve this puzzle to ideally keep it to three stories which we don't even have the sketch or anything for what that looks

[Speaker 2] (2:30:35 - 2:30:51)
like just that one point if you don't mind so the LDA as I said with Hadley is the beginning of a process tonight the nonprofit developer has not spent any

[Speaker 3] (2:30:52 - 2:30:56)
significant funds I think we're signing Katie is exhibit B attached conceptual

[Speaker 2] (2:30:56 - 2:31:00)
design conceptual rendering that's what I said yeah conceptual we don't have

[Speaker 1] (2:31:00 - 2:31:16)
that we do have a conceptual rendering it's not attached to this exhibit to this here we do have never seen we've had them I think you didn't you see him Mars yesterday didn't you bring up that it looks like it's four stories but

[Speaker 3] (2:31:16 - 2:31:19)
it's three stories did once she sent to us in August we're both four stories you

[Speaker 1] (2:31:19 - 2:31:23)
have a conversation with her this week about it wasn't that yeah well so you

[Speaker 3] (2:31:23 - 2:31:31)
have seen so she hadn't seen she hadn't even seen anything that showed three floors and I asked her like what's going on like this document says three

[Speaker 1] (2:31:31 - 2:32:17)
stories the only things we ever seen are four stories so it's it's so she had called me and said that she did have a conceptual design in there and that she was going to be sending it through but to me it that I don't even I mean if we're entering into this process they're gonna have to come up with the designs because it's in writing that it's gonna be three stories great but I mean I mean it's this is this is the beginning this is the beginning I mean this is the beginning of the stages they have to come up with multiple designs they have to do a lot of work to make sure it works for the neighborhood it looks appropriate it has certain height restrictions to keep it you know compliant this is this is the beginning this isn't we're not signing off on what

[Speaker 3] (2:32:17 - 2:34:17)
it looks like well but you're in some ways it's a big it's a big fat document and in a lot of ways there's a lot it doesn't really say the one thing it does say is how much the rent is and the rent is driven off of whether or not there's a post and so what we've looked at different schemes and by virtue of this this scheme at least the kind of finger-drawing I saw yesterday assumes there's no post on this site we all we all in agreement that this represents this document represents a scheme with no post there this document yep and that into the rent amount because I think if there were a post included like what they proposed in the RFP it would have a ramification and what the rent amount would be where I'm what I'm getting at is that is there a way for us to sign an agreement that allows us to adhere to ARPA but doesn't pin us down to doesn't preclude us from some more discussion on how to construct a three-story building that also it's not going to be the existing post based on what I've understood but could there be a three-story building there that has a new post I think the reason let me just finish okay I'm trying I'm trying to you know nothing's going to be perfect I grant trying to minimize the negatives

[Speaker 1] (2:34:17 - 2:34:21)
you had these you had these discussions with the name yesterday didn't you and

[Speaker 3] (2:34:21 - 2:34:26)
they and they said yes it's they absolutely said that this everything's a

[Speaker 1] (2:34:26 - 2:34:38)
challenge everything everything's a challenge but we're not going to be able to build 3,000 square foot post inside there and be able to accommodate all the parking for the neighborhood they did not say they did not say that they

[Speaker 5] (2:34:38 - 2:34:43)
actually they told me that today well they told us something yeah so you're

[Speaker 2] (2:34:43 - 2:34:52)
both on a call with me so could you tell us what they told you yeah so they it's

[Speaker 3] (2:34:52 - 2:35:35)
a matter of like you know pushing right either going up a floor or you're taking away some parking or the post is a little smaller right so these these pieces on one hand you're saying like well this is just the beginning of the process and so what I'm trying to do here is give us enough like degrees of freedom so that we can sign a document that moves us forward and allows us still some flexibility to still pursue how we optimize on these like really three pieces right number of floors number of parking and whether or not you

[Speaker 2] (2:35:35 - 2:37:10)
can have a post and how big it is so the original the original LDA that we discussed had a post in it yeah and that was presented to the veterans or was communicated to the veterans because I've never met with the veterans I have full transparency all the information I get is hearsay through the liaisons to the veterans so it's my understanding that that was communicated to the veterans and what was the reaction on that original proposal the reaction on the original proposal to that had the original we had an LDA which had a veterans post in it and some additional auxiliary space to support veteran services and was going to be as I recall the correct like levels of floors and we could figure out the parking and it wasn't going to be perfect and it was going to be onerous on the neighborhood but not the light issue was not an issue the flood zone was not going to be an issue there were things that were sort of level set there that were not going to be problems there were other problems but when we went forward with that discussion what was brought back to the board was that the post was too small in that proposal and then when we went back to the B'nai, B'nai said that's the most space we could give in this configuration and still meet the number of units we needed to make the project

[Speaker 3] (2:37:10 - 2:37:52)
financially viable is that correct okay definitely about this too small that's for sure I think I think the conversation yesterday just what it led me to feel like is maybe ultimately there's no way to make it any better than what we're what we've evolved to now right we've gone from one to two to sketch I saw you know hand-waving yesterday the three is there no four I don't know I'm not saying I'm not trying to I'm not trying to keep us from a vote I'm trying to figure out a way in which we can not just kind of slam a door so

[Speaker 1] (2:37:52 - 2:38:59)
I think the problem I'm having is like we have since the last time we left this meeting we have sent out any type of an update if there's a change in one little thing that update was sent to the select board and now here we are at the last minute with a short amount of time and we're trying to if you're if you're trying to you're trying to rework it and I think are we are we really talking about is the issue here that the post doesn't want to go in to the American Legion post to me that that is yes that is the issue so that because the post doesn't want to move less than 600 feet down the road at our expense us building it out us taking all the capital expenses to give them financial relief that is the problem here and I I think at some point you have to say is that a reasonable is that reasonable and I mean that's fair that's is that

[Speaker 6] (2:38:59 - 2:39:17)
reasonable okay and to Doug's point he's trying to find a middle road he's trying to find something that's gonna make as many people happy as as can be right if that is putting a post that's a thousand square feet or whatever right I mean that

[Speaker 1] (2:39:17 - 2:39:27)
it could potentially be seven hundred thousand square feet but that's been proposed that that right but I don't propose and said and said no there's

[Speaker 3] (2:39:27 - 2:39:32)
evolution in these things like you know maybe now it's something that the people

[Speaker 6] (2:39:32 - 2:40:20)
of the post would be more it would have more of an appetite for then recharts the you know the American Legion building I don't know because I again we've always gone through the liaison has communicated this I I'm hearing second and third hand from Margie or David or Sean Fitzgerald you know what everybody else wants right like so yeah there are options out there but from what I'm told or what I've been told the first option of having the post there with that size was too small okay so then we started touring people around to various sites in town and I was told that everybody was open to that and that would be not a bad option now now at the eleventh hour it's not a good option yeah I think so now Doug is trying to find something that might

[Speaker 3] (2:40:20 - 2:41:15)
still work it's just a correct thing you know at least my perception was the touring around wasn't like that those were all good options I think that's that's there were options on the table well they were actually we were off direction it wasn't temporary potential yeah so just just to clarify because I think it matters in a sense of like it wasn't that these were good options before now they're not it was that these were presented as potential options and we engaged in a process and then ultimately the vets expressed as I understand it a strong preference for keeping the post as it is and if not that then at least another post there right you're talking maybe one that's of half the size well no no I'm actually not no ideally ideally would be the same size even bigger than what was originally proposed but I'm not saying I know that

[Speaker 2] (2:41:15 - 2:42:20)
how to solve the Rubik's Cube here I applaud the effort to try to make this less more palatable for the parties but I feel like what is getting mixed in that sort of Rubik's Cube of moving pieces are the neighbors and part of the veterans post moving is to alleviate some of the traffic parking other things that will obviously be placed on it with the 42 units right that's a consideration we've heard from neighbors who are worried about the congestion the light the noise all of those things so part of moving the post is also maybe perhaps a benefit that you're now taking away from the neighbors because now they have the post that they've already had plus the addition of all this other stuff and there's no alleviation of anything for them just the addition maybe

[Speaker 3] (2:42:20 - 2:42:24)
so maybe they have very nice housing as neighbors now too they have a new post

[Speaker 1] (2:42:24 - 2:42:28)
that's sitting there I think so I think you've heard I think you heard them

[Speaker 3] (2:42:28 - 2:42:34)
tonight talk about what I heard actually mostly was that people wanted a smaller

[Speaker 1] (2:42:34 - 2:42:44)
project Miriam which is not find it which we've been told over and over we know that's not financially feasible I don't blame them honestly but just but

[Speaker 5] (2:42:44 - 2:43:29)
just just from a just from a square footage perspective the planning board in I believe 21 or 22 approved a 35,000 square foot housing project this proposed project while has while it does have more units is approximately the same size 35,000 square feet it's it's it's virtually the same size on a gonna on a building area perspective but to explore to explore dogs proposition a little more I would just like to reach out to Amy and just see if that's even is that something that's possible is that something that's feasible where we may be able to go down this this road comply with ARPA and kind of thread that

[Speaker 4] (2:43:29 - 2:44:28)
thread that needle so to speak so I strong caveat I don't know anything about real estate deals what I need for ARPA purposes is some sort of signed agreement or contract that says that this is going to be developed into affordable housing what the design and placement and square footage whatever those is irrelevant from my standpoint so I don't know if and I hope you guys do I don't know if the LDA is the one and only type of agreement for that or if there's separate agreements or how that works I don't know if that buys you any needle threading or not but that's for ARPA purposes to secure the money I need something signed saying it's going to be developed to affordable

[Speaker 3] (2:44:28 - 2:44:51)
housing yeah I mean you know I think there's a lot of you know basically got the whole form of this done you know my reading is that it's really just this rent piece that feels like it starts to lock in a certain approach if well

[Speaker 2] (2:44:51 - 2:45:05)
there's no obligation in the LDA for them to build a post so if you if you want them to have that obligation we should contractually put it on them right so that would be the other piece that's lacking if it's not in here

[Speaker 3] (2:45:05 - 2:45:16)
that's not in there right maybe it's silent on it basically it's silent so there is no obligation for them to do it right nor does it preclude them from

[Speaker 2] (2:45:17 - 2:45:24)
I don't know they're not obligated to do just the point I'm trying to make yeah

[Speaker 3] (2:45:24 - 2:46:17)
so if we if but I'm also trying to be fair in the sense of like I don't know I'm not saying I know sitting here today that absolutely you can the only if the assumption is again it's hard to believe that a magic number of 40 units that it has to be to be financed but okay let's assume that for now you know what is the flexibility on the parking what what what what's reasonable for the neighbors you know what can you work on the in terms of the post size you know it feels like we're having this whole conversation we had one meeting that was a public meeting really to go over it you know you could have even in the next few weeks you put this off for two weeks you could have you could have a you have a little you know design session that's a public session with the neighbors and the vets and Benet can go through and kind of show like and what if Benet

[Speaker 6] (2:46:17 - 2:46:28)
doesn't want to do that right well what do we do well the one person that replied to this RFP we could ask says no yeah then what do we do well we can ask

[Speaker 3] (2:46:28 - 2:46:33)
well we're losing a deal right we could just ask they know in your scenario we

[Speaker 2] (2:46:33 - 2:47:38)
had two months ago we haven't asked him to do that well we did ask them to do some renderings and they went back and did some renderings when you guys when we went from two lots to one and they spent time and energy to do that and then subsequent from that conversation there was a real risk that if we didn't make a decision that they were not gonna go forward with the project that they felt like we had to make a decision we had to have a direction and that is why the urgency is coming from the liaisons who speak to them to you because they put that urgency in us not because I'm fictitiously making it up or I feel like it's happening what it's not happening I will tell you that there was a risk that they were going to walk away and the project would not be possible which means we're back to the scenario we started with they walk away we have no answer to the RFP we have to figure out a way to pay the 1.7 something million dollars and we lose out on the ARPA funds even if it becomes affordable housing in the future it can be still become affordable housing in the future we just have to pay for it out of our own pockets now I'm not about

[Speaker 3] (2:47:38 - 2:47:44)
ARPA so but what I'm suggesting doesn't involve that type of risk so when you

[Speaker 2] (2:47:44 - 2:47:50)
spoke to Vinay the other day yeah they were open to this idea of oh of course

[Speaker 3] (2:47:50 - 2:48:21)
they you know they weren't like oh yeah great let's you know do another thing but they actually had some assumptions that they started to rethink during that conversation they had an assumption about you can only build the building up to where this underground culvert runs through the site right and then through the course of the conversation like well actually you really you can't put a column there but if you actually span it so oh maybe you actually can make the building longer than what we were thinking so what just like that type of

[Speaker 2] (2:48:21 - 2:49:16)
thing like who knows you know right and to that point they've actually done no due diligence because why would they because we're not in a contract with them I spent no money yeah so to say it we could go through this whole process with them and come to the exact same conclusion the potential exists right potential exists that we go through a binding due diligence period or whatever you want to call it where they we ask them if they'll spend some money I don't know if they will or not I doubt they'll spend money on a project that they're going to be guaranteed to do but say they agree to do something and then they come to a conclusion I just we could still be in this exact place and and that's the worry I have we get to this exact place and I'm not precluding any

[Speaker 3] (2:49:16 - 2:49:42)
of that with what I'm suggesting I mean in some ways you could you could go through with this but even even with the rent amount and everything that's in here what I'm concerned about is the assumption behind that and that you know in some ways it's good there is no conceptual design here because you don't even know what you're actually talking about so the signing of this actually

[Speaker 1] (2:49:42 - 2:49:47)
does open the door for that conversation with them as long as we are actually

[Speaker 3] (2:49:47 - 2:49:53)
going into it still with the open mind about whether or not there's a post there

[Speaker 1] (2:49:53 - 2:50:34)
I don't think anybody has an issue with whether or not there's a post there if it can if it can work I mean they're the ones that said we can't do 3,000 we can do 1,500 the VFW said we don't want 15 we it's not good enough 1,500 we've got to stay there and you've got a big build a bigger building so I think with this agreement if we sign this agreement we still keep ourselves open to having more conversations with it I think by not signing this agreement we're turning around and we're sending a message to Binet that we can't make a decision and we're putting our money at risk.

[Speaker 2] (2:50:35 - 2:50:45)
I actually think signing this agreement helps put us in a better position for that due diligence to be done because it puts them in a position to start spending that kind of money to do that information so if all you want...

[Speaker 3] (2:50:45 - 2:51:07)
I totally agree I just unless I'm on a different planet the assumption behind this is that there would be no post right I mean that is the kind of if I've been like completely missing the boat I mean this this this version has assumed there would be no post there right yeah use your

[Speaker 2] (2:51:07 - 2:51:36)
logic though it's silent as to the post right so but the rent amount infers that there's no post right is the suggestion then you make it optional you make it like a two option rent one with post one without that would be that would be awesome and if and so what's the amendment so we suggest it and we presented to Binet tomorrow Kurt our attorney our outside counsel we

[Speaker 3] (2:51:36 - 2:51:59)
present it and they say no well then we've got that feedback I mean it does feel like we got even two weeks to have a little bit more dialogue and you know maybe we'll come back here and be like oh well we really tried we really tried to figure out how to put this all together and there really is no way to do it but I just feel like we've been having these piecemeal conversations

[Speaker 6] (2:52:00 - 2:52:05)
and you know kind of like a concerted effort right it's warring factions right

[Speaker 1] (2:52:05 - 2:53:24)
it's like right instead of like you know please stop well so all we're doing is we're going to me we're just we keep the work we're on a hamster wheel yeah like I'm thinking we are thinking if we I'm thinking that there is a way to sign this with with some language we can put in our own language here and to show that we're making the commitment to them we're showing them that we have some issues is there is there any flexibility when you go and look at the site and you look at the property is there any flexibility of combining or doing whatever is there a possibility you know the one concern that I have is is still the burden on the neighborhood we cannot we cannot walk away from the burden on the neighborhood and what I'm hearing tonight is I'm actually what I'm hearing tonight is we don't care about that's what I'm hearing because I hear I hear a rational rational option of using another building a larger building with funding and that answer is like no and I think that by using a large by using that building it gives enormous relief to the neighborhood and

[Speaker 3] (2:53:24 - 2:53:50)
and I inevitably that's true there's no denying that what we didn't hear tonight we've gotten emails about right are the people in the 89 Burrill Street neighborhood right so it's not like it's a magic this issue goes away there are people there that are impacted with parking and you know whatever issues there are with you know people coming in and out of the post those issues are

[Speaker 2] (2:53:50 - 2:55:48)
going to be just moved right but Doug right but it's going to be shared it's gonna the burden of the burden of the 42 units is going to be put on Pine Street the burden of the comings and goings the parking of the post is put on Burrill Street it's not all being put on Pine Street that's the point I think that's really important and the folks who came out and spoke about who emailed us about Burrill Street you know they said this is a residential neighborhood we have families there I know families that live on Pine Street I know families that live in that neighborhood too and so many folks spoke in public comment and said this has to be a give-and-take situation we have as a community of 15,000 we have to share the responsibility of our community and building it and helping it and aiding it and so to me it feels like better to share across more than to burden one street greater that's just my feeling about it I'm open to voting to approve the LDA with an amendment to include so long as it's agreed by the developer to include language which sort of gives a two scenario situation and getting into the due diligence period and allowing them to make those decisions based on facts instead of assumptions because the veterans did a sketch Renee did a sketch but nothing has actually been vetted or sort of thought planned or surveyed or anything like that but I'm not willing to not sign an LDA and lose out on a significant amount of funding to make this happen because that would be disingenuous to town meeting since we explained to town meeting how we were gonna finance this and I don't know if we would have had the support we had a town meeting if we were going to pay for

[Speaker 5] (2:55:48 - 2:57:42)
it out of taxpayers pockets I also think that if that if you know just just going back to the to the Warren article from May of 23 I strongly believe that had we taken this article and said we're gonna we're gonna relocate the VFW post somewhere else in town this article would have gone down in flames the article is very clear as to whether you know that you know Angela Ippolito sat right here and brought up a point about about the use of the two parcels you know the fact that we get a an opinion from Town Council saying well because there was a comma here this that or the other thing the post is optional I just think the amount of pretzel and and gymnastics in the in the in the opinion of Town Council stating that the VFW post was optional because of an exhibit or or an appendix that that rated with the VFW post as as a highest rating and without a VFW post as a lowest overrules something in the in the RFP I truly believe that we have to live up to the RFP and the RFP would result in the post being constructed on the on the site or rehabilitated period but that's not what the that's not what the Warren article says in plain English in plain English the word article says it I mean I don't have it in front of me to read but you have a portion of the land and the construction of a new VFW post it

[Speaker 6] (2:57:42 - 2:57:48)
doesn't say what size right so a new post that's smaller yeah right that's an

[Speaker 15] (2:57:48 - 2:57:58)
option stop but it's no but it says yes yes yeah it doesn't speak to size it

[Speaker 1] (2:57:58 - 2:58:09)
does not okay so let's just say let's put we should have yeah absolutely absolutely because that answers the RFP smaller than what they have but if that's

[Speaker 5] (2:58:09 - 2:58:17)
what that's what the RFP did say up to 3,000 feet I believe up to up to up to

[Speaker 3] (2:58:17 - 2:58:31)
so so the I think I'd love to I'd love to propose I really I haven't well I think what I don't feel like we actually have to do I don't think we really have

[Speaker 2] (2:58:31 - 2:59:24)
to write the language yeah I think we could vote in like a conditional way and then council can come up with language that reflects the conditions that we're saying to be reflected in the LDA like we will go to support the LDA if the following conditions are met so long as they're agreeable by the developer and then if the developer disagrees or if we can't get to agreement we can come back before the end of the year and we can talk about that scenario then and we didn't take the post being in the building off the table but this board didn't take that off the table no no it was taken off the table for us so let's just go back to that and see the best we can do if that's what we're doing now but we do have to make a decision here so what are we saying we're saying so

[Speaker 3] (2:59:24 - 2:59:36)
what's there what's the amendment I think you know so it's really 3b lease of property base rent I believe is the operative section yeah I just caution

[Speaker 2] (2:59:36 - 2:59:52)
maybe we just speak in a concept about it exciting to specific provisions in case Kurt needs to change other positions based on that concept right because I don't want to limit his ability to change or the vote based on the specific language well you can tell me whether or you think I'm getting too

[Speaker 3] (2:59:52 - 2:59:56)
detailed but it seems to me that basically the concept is that what page

[Speaker 2] (2:59:56 - 3:00:10)
you're looking at a page yeah so you want to add to the LDA an option an option to include the post and an option to an option if the post is not included

[Speaker 3] (3:00:10 - 3:00:15)
correct and you want rent would obviously probably change and then what

[Speaker 2] (3:00:15 - 3:00:21)
what kind of time frame because I'm sure and he's gonna ask yeah that that

[Speaker 3] (3:00:21 - 3:01:06)
decision has to be made by I mean it to me it seems like there would be you know you'd have what's the due diligence my idea would you would have at least one you know public design sessions Vinay would help would hold with the community so people could really hear from them about what they're what the restrictions are that they're dealing with so it's not us trying to kind of be the intermediaries and trying to play architect or anything else and builder and legal constraint and financing constrictions etc but that they can give people directly feedback about why one thing works or doesn't work so I guess

[Speaker 2] (3:01:06 - 3:02:05)
by the end of the due diligence period we will have to vote to support a finalization of whether or not the post will be in there that will not be a finalization of design because there's still a ton of stuff that happens after the due diligence period where they go before CBA where they come back to us for design review there's a ton of more public comment that happens from neighbors and veterans and community members so I don't want to take any of that away because that was built in here for that purpose yeah of course but we can certainly ask and if the developer so inclined then my motion would be that we vote to approve the LDA as amended so long as the developer agrees and we vote to support the LDA without with those reflected changes and if they don't support it then we come back and we can talk about it on the 18th or the 9th so

[Speaker 1] (3:02:05 - 3:02:17)
we need the actual language so that the LDA include an option with the post

[Speaker 2] (3:02:17 - 3:02:29)
and an option without the post that's it and that by the end of the due diligence period the town would commit to one of those options or the sooner

[Speaker 1] (3:02:29 - 3:03:03)
if negotiated between B'nai so B'nai is told so just so we were really clear B'nai has told us they could do it they could do it with 1500 we told them no and then we gave them another we gave another drawing and then B'nai said to us pretty much we're getting a little tired here yeah right yeah and now we're going back and saying and we were concerned about losing them and now we're going back and we're doing the same thing well if they come back and say no then we vote on the 18th.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:03 - 3:03:04)
Then we go with what we were going to rejoice in.

[Speaker 1] (3:03:05 - 3:03:05)
That's it.

[Speaker 2] (3:03:08 - 3:03:28)
But you're at least keeping it on the table as an option so that we've exhausted all options even though we've already talked about this option we'll go back to it if that's yeah what and there's at least at least a little bit more public engagement. We should be able to sign an LDA with two different versions.

[Speaker 3] (3:03:28 - 3:04:01)
I don't think that's a problem yeah if you can invest a little bit more time now in helping to educate all of us a little bit more it could pay massive dividends for them down the road you know I'm not gonna say that just you know go through this exercise and we land back in the same spot everyone's gonna be like kumbaya but I do feel like you at least buy some opportunity for a little bit more consensus if you get a little bit more information you explore is there any other option and if there really isn't then at least we've played that out.

[Speaker 2] (3:04:06 - 3:04:30)
And to be clear so that nobody's under any misconception there is a lot of other public engagement involved in the LDA whether it has this option or not going forward so I just want to be very clear about that this is not the end of this discussion and even if we vote to support this or a version of this this like I said for Hadley this is the very start of the beginning of this conversation.

[Speaker 1] (3:04:30 - 3:05:06)
It's enormous enormous public public input. Diane do you have all that? Do you have it?

So I motioned do I is there a second? Second. So yes so so we have a motion what is the motion?

So the motion is for the LDA to have what's been described and if we can agree to that with B'nai that we will sign it.

[Speaker 21] (3:05:07 - 3:05:07)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (3:05:07 - 3:05:18)
We're supporting it so if we if we have a conversation with B'nai tomorrow Kurt makes the agreements and Pete Peter their attorney agrees to it then we would be able to sign that document.

[Speaker 5] (3:05:21 - 3:05:25)
So how do we determine whether the post is in or out?

[Speaker 2] (3:05:27 - 3:06:05)
So B'nai is not going to spend the money now because they're not in their due diligence so starting them on the LDA process and in their due diligence period and telling them these are the options available to you and then showing us the options available having public engagement as Doug presented and then saying by the end of that due diligence period we'll have a decision. Taking that sort of gray area off the table and letting folks have the option is what Doug feels and I think we feel like is.

[Speaker 6] (3:06:05 - 3:06:07)
We're trying to meet in the middle.

[Speaker 2] (3:06:07 - 3:06:09)
Trying to meet in the middle. Trying to meet somewhere.

[Speaker 6] (3:06:09 - 3:06:11)
Trying to find the best possible solution to check all of these boxes.

[Speaker 12] (3:06:23 - 3:06:29)
Hey folks, good evening. Pass off to you for still being in process.

[Speaker 2] (3:06:31 - 3:06:34)
We're trying to get it done Kurt. Trying to get there.

[Speaker 6] (3:06:34 - 3:06:36)
Kurt, do you know what point we're at?

[Speaker 12] (3:06:37 - 3:06:48)
I kind of jumped into the tail end where you were about to make a motion to approve it and you were talking about going through the due diligence process. Maybe give me a quick 30 second recap of what the issue is.

[Speaker 2] (3:06:49 - 3:06:52)
Yeah, so the issue is whether or not the post will be inside the building B'nai builds.

[Speaker 12] (3:06:55 - 3:06:58)
Okay, I mean the present draft is that it's going to be outside.

[Speaker 2] (3:06:58 - 3:08:02)
That's right. We're trying to get it. We're trying to see at this point by way of compromise if we could get B'nai to agree to start their diligence period and to put some dollars and cents into basically two versions of this building.

And then by the end of the due diligence period they would come back and present both options as financially feasible if they both were. And then there would be a decision made by the town as to what option they would want to go with. Because right now obviously what they've provided to us have been sketches and renderings and I thinks and possibly's and well we didn't consider that.

And we've changed our position. It sounds like B'nai's changed their position a little bit too. So maybe to get them in to spend some real money to figure out how big the post could be, how much they could build without taking away the character from the neighborhood, keeping within the units they've prescribed to already, you know, basically keeping everything the same but sort of getting into the dollars and cents of what it looks like.

[Speaker 12] (3:08:03 - 3:08:16)
Right. Yes, so as you said, we've sort of flip-flopped a little bit. But having said that, and I've been part of the business discussions, but that was the original concept which they bought on to.

[Speaker 21] (3:08:16 - 3:08:16)
Correct.

[Speaker 12] (3:08:16 - 3:08:58)
So unless there's been some input from them since those original agreements, to the contrary, I think they should be amenable to it. Although probably a little surprised that we're going back to that. So I'm fine with basically restoring the language about the condominium and the option of the town to elect to go forward with the post being inside with the rent reduction, which is to say not a payment by the town because you're not in a position to make a payment to them down the road, but just a reduction in terms of the base rent.

Yep. That's fine. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:58 - 3:08:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (3:08:59 - 3:08:59)
No problem.

[Speaker 1] (3:08:59 - 3:09:05)
But, Kurt, just as an option, I mean, just as an option, because if they come back.

[Speaker 12] (3:09:05 - 3:09:06)
It's always your option.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:06 - 3:09:12)
Absolutely. If they come back and say, look, you know, we're only going to make the VFW this size and it doesn't work for the VFW.

[Speaker 12] (3:09:13 - 3:09:13)
Right.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:13 - 3:09:14)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (3:09:14 - 3:09:22)
Yeah, then you elect to have them go off-site. That makes sense. I mean, again, we're just going to the status quo ante.

That's fine.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:22 - 3:09:24)
Yep. Okay, great.

[Speaker 12] (3:09:24 - 3:09:24)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:24 - 3:09:25)
Okay.

[Speaker 9] (3:09:25 - 3:09:25)
Thank you, Kurt.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:26 - 3:09:29)
Should we do a vote? We haven't actually voted.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:29 - 3:09:40)
Yeah. Yes, we should do a vote. So with that motion, with that motion, do we have a second?

Yeah, Doug seconded it. Doug seconded it. So all in favor?

[Speaker 5] (3:09:40 - 3:09:41)
Danielle and I seconded it.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:41 - 3:09:43)
All in favor? Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 5] (3:09:43 - 3:09:44)
I'm a no.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:45 - 3:09:45)
You're a no?

[Speaker 5] (3:09:46 - 3:09:48)
I'm closer. I'm a no for now.

[Speaker 1] (3:09:49 - 3:09:53)
Well, if you're a no, I'm going to be a no. Well, it doesn't matter because we have three yeses, so we're voting on it.

[Speaker 21] (3:09:54 - 3:09:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (3:09:56 - 3:09:58)
I was just trying to be supportive. It's 10 o'clock.

[Speaker 12] (3:09:59 - 3:10:11)
All right. Sorry. Can I just, two seconds, Mary Ellen, since I, again, I wasn't here before.

Is the no is to not accept the LDA with those proposed changes?

[Speaker 1] (3:10:11 - 3:10:32)
It's to not accept the LDA at all. Exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. No, I'm good with accepting the LDA the way it was. I'm just concerned about, I'm concerned about going back to- Wait, are you really a no or were you joking?

No, I'm really a no because I think that we're, I think we're putting this at risk. I think Vinay is going to turn around and say, look, you know, you're just too hard to deal with. You're too hard to deal with.

Well, that could be.

[Speaker 6] (3:10:33 - 3:10:37)
And then that is not going to be on me personally. I'll tell you that right now.

[Speaker 12] (3:10:38 - 3:10:56)
Yeah, Mary Ellen, they're not going to walk away from the deal. They're going to be surprised, but we can work through this issue. Okay.

So basically what you're saying is three to two with everything in the LDA as is, but with the change about the posts staying inside.

[Speaker 2] (3:10:57 - 3:10:57)
As an option.

[Speaker 12] (3:10:58 - 3:11:04)
What would it take, so you've already voted, but I'm just curious, what would it take to get a unanimous vote?

[Speaker 1] (3:11:05 - 3:11:21)
So you can- Moving heaven and earth. No, so- All right, well, Mary Ellen, we'll debrief after. Wait, hold on.

Change my vote to yes as long as it's just an option and we can work through it. I mean, I do want to work through it. So go ahead.

[Speaker 21] (3:11:21 - 3:11:22)
Can't go left. Can't go right.

[Speaker 1] (3:11:23 - 3:11:25)
But can we explore Kurt's point?

[Speaker 2] (3:11:25 - 3:11:26)
Because I'm too impure.

[Speaker 21] (3:11:26 - 3:11:27)
I'd love to know too, Kurt.

[Speaker 2] (3:11:27 - 3:12:30)
That's a great question. This is always like the sort of insurmountable mountain in compromise, right? Yeah.

It's like you make a draw line in the sand and you say, I'm going to make this happen. And you walk into a meeting and you say, this is all I'm going to accept. And then you hear reasonable thought, right?

You hear the public who you represent and you hear the people that this is going to matter to the most. And you try to find the compromise. You try to find the little spaces where you have empathy and compassion and consideration and you push closer to those spaces.

And I think we are trying to do that. Right. And I just don't want to feel like at the end of it that there was no push in our direction also.

And I'm sorry if that sounds selfish or unempathetic, but we've already established it's an imperfective system. And it's never going to be everybody's pleased. Everybody has to give.

Everybody needs to give something, not everything.

[Speaker 5] (3:12:32 - 3:12:51)
I think I came in. I've listened. I'm intrigued.

I look forward to additional conversations over the next few weeks. I want to see this housing project happen. I want to make sure that the veterans are treated fairly.

Period. I want both of those things.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:51 - 3:12:52)
We all want that.

[Speaker 6] (3:12:52 - 3:12:53)
We all want that.

[Speaker 1] (3:12:53 - 3:12:56)
I don't think there's anybody that doesn't want that. Every one of us want that. Right.

Right?

[Speaker 21] (3:12:56 - 3:12:57)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (3:12:57 - 3:13:00)
Okay. That's my position.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:00 - 3:13:05)
All right. So we're a 4-1. 4-1.

4-1. So, Kurt, we'll talk to you in the morning. Thanks, Kurt.

[Speaker 12] (3:13:06 - 3:13:28)
Thanks, Kurt. Yeah, no, Mary Ellen, give me a call in the morning. I want to debrief on this issue because, to your point, we all want to make sure the residents are protected and, in particular, that the vets are protected.

So if there's something else we need to be pushing forward, let's do it because, again, we would all love to have a unanimous vote on this.

[Speaker 9] (3:13:28 - 3:13:28)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:29 - 3:13:29)
Okay.

[Speaker 12] (3:13:30 - 3:13:32)
Okay. Thanks. Have a good evening.

Bye.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:33 - 3:13:34)
Thanks, Kurt. Thanks, Kurt.

[Speaker 9] (3:13:34 - 3:13:34)
All right.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:35 - 3:13:39)
So now moving along. No, we're not done. Come on.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:41 - 3:13:42)
It's 10 o'clock. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (3:13:42 - 3:13:44)
I'd really like to make a motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:44 - 3:13:46)
I mean, but we don't have time. Do we have Liz?

[Speaker 1] (3:13:48 - 3:13:58)
Not Liz? Liz, you're just here as a spectator, right? Who is?

Were you here? Liz spoke. She's here for ARPA.

She spoke. You were? You already spoke.

No, she already spoke.

[Speaker 2] (3:13:58 - 3:14:05)
She gave a public comment. I understand. I'm just trying to be considerate.

She sat through the whole meeting. Yeah. She sits through all the meetings.

[Speaker 21] (3:14:05 - 3:14:08)
Okay. So do we. Right.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:09 - 3:14:11)
Right. But... Wait.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:11 - 3:14:13)
Is there anything on the consent agenda we have to do? Yeah. Yes.

[Speaker 21] (3:14:15 - 3:14:15)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:15 - 3:14:15)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:16 - 3:14:18)
Don't we have our minutes too? Yeah.

[Speaker 21] (3:14:18 - 3:14:19)
We do.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:19 - 3:14:20)
We're going to adjourn. I just want that.

[Speaker 5] (3:14:20 - 3:14:21)
Let's pull the minutes.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:21 - 3:14:31)
Let's pull the minutes. Motion to approve the consent agenda. Wait, wait.

We don't have... We can't approve the minutes? No.

Okay. So pull the minutes. And then, so what are we pulling in here?

Just the minutes.

[Speaker 2] (3:14:31 - 3:14:34)
So we are voting to approve the one-day liquor license.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:34 - 3:14:36)
So the Senior Center's Winter Festival Open?

[Speaker 21] (3:14:36 - 3:14:37)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:37 - 3:14:42)
And we're also approving the peddler license? So moved.

[Speaker 5] (3:14:42 - 3:14:42)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:43 - 3:14:44)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 5] (3:14:44 - 3:14:44)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:45 - 3:14:49)
Diane, you have that? Aye. Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 5] (3:14:49 - 3:14:49)
So moved.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:49 - 3:14:50)
Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 5] (3:14:51 - 3:14:52)
Aye. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:53 - 3:14:53)
Aye.

[Speaker 5] (3:14:53 - 3:14:54)
Time to administer your report.

[Speaker 1] (3:14:55 - 3:14:56)
It's like wartime. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 21] (3:14:57 - 3:15:00)
As you know, we'll get you next time. Bye.