[Speaker 15] (0:32 - 2:25)
In this lecture, we are going to look at how to solve the equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for

[Speaker 1] (2:38 - 7:30)
a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion for a fluid equation of motion. Good evening everyone and welcome to the January 8th select board meeting. Before we begin our Pledge of Allegiance we just take a moment of silence to recognize our 39th President Mr. Jimmy Carter. Okay, thank you and if you please we are being recorded and we are being recorded if you could please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, so please accept our apologies for being a couple minutes late we were in executive session and so we're going to start our meeting with public comment if there's anyone here that has a public comment please step up to the mic and state your name and address or if there's anybody online. Okay, we'll be online so we will move to the Town Administrators Report.

Mr. Cresta.

[Speaker 5] (7:30 - 13:56)
Thank You Mary Ellen. I am pleased to be able to offer the following report on programs and initiatives that are ongoing in the town of Swampscott as well as some updates on a variety of things that have happened since my last report. Kings Beach the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee coincidentally meeting tonight at the same time voted to support a $15,000 investment to the City of Lins to secure a three-month rental of a portable UV treatment system.

However, the committee is aware that this vote was only a recommendation and that the select board would have to approve the issuance of the funds. I've had several conversations with the Lynn Mayor and his staff most recently last Friday Mayor Nicholson is looking for Swampscott's financial support for the UV pilot program to treat the two outfalls at Kings Beach preliminary estimates that the three-month pilot program which would run from June through September June to August excuse me would cost $500,000 which we'll be responsible for half if we agree to do so. Kleinfelder who is currently working for Lynn not Swampscott at this time is firming up that number and before I can reach that subject with you guys I'll have to have a firm number they're very well aware of that so I'd like to add that to a future agenda.

That's okay. The Glover and access in identification agreement was signed by the Athanas family in the town over the weekend. This will allow Structures North, New England Landmark, distinctly New England properties and real estate, the town of Swampscott and Emory Construction to access the property.

Monday Structures North was on the inside of the building we were delayed Tuesday Public Works was supposed to be there we ended up getting there today the trees are down spoke with Emory Construction they will be on site tomorrow to top the building. Hopefully we'll finish tomorrow maybe not they'll finish up on Friday. All right finance.

APA funds were reallocated earlier this week to take overages and projects that we either don't have signed contracts for or contracts that came in at less than $120,000 was reallocated to a Pine Street acquisition and the remainder of the $23,000 for the sewer infrastructure repairs the concentration on Kings and Fisherman Beach. Senior Center hosted a fabulous winter festival this year to celebrate as well as educate and share traditions around Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, and the winter solstice. The friends were extremely supportive of this event and covered all the costs.

Moving on. Human Resources. HR is very busy completing their reorganization of files so they are easy to access.

Human Resources is making final edits to a potential new employee handbook which we'll talk about in a second and lastly they are making salary comparisons for town employees. Facilities. Facilities is busy having new water filling stations installed around town.

Most recently the town hall. Police Department met with Detective Doyle and Detective Chandler earlier to discuss the reopening of the unsolved murder of Henry Bradd that took place here in Swampscott 50 years ago. 50 years ago.

It's hard to believe I was a young boy at that time of the murder and recall the impact it had on the community. Personally I'd love to see that murder resolved and finally bring closure to the Bradd family. Public Works.

I received the invoice from Anne Greenison's son for the sewer force main repair on the Han Street in Lynn. 98,000 plus dollars. Right now the unforeseen bill is being paid through ARPA funds.

All right. I attended a Marshall Street outfall progress meeting construction on the Marshall Street project. Bernice has been busy repairing sewer mains on Fuller Ave, Cedar Hill Terrace and Aspen Road and most recently today they're on Millett Road.

I attended a Phase 2A bidding and construction project meeting for the Stacey's Brook sewer infrastructure improvements. An invitation, a bid, was sent out on January 2nd with Zaback due on January 30th. The estimated cost of that project including the base bid in alternate, 2.7 million dollars. All right. Continue. Get a little bit more that wasn't in the packet.

Oh bonus. Making up for all the lost time that I've been skipped over the last few meetings. All right.

So we've had some meetings with Town Hall. Currently working with staff to be more efficient and resident friendly for 2025. We plan on adding four hours of operation to the Town Hall for the residents of Swanscourt.

This will be accomplished without adding additional hours to Town Hall employees starting in February. All department heads will return to working on Fridays from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. All department heads will now work Monday through Thursday 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. so they're still going to be working 36 hours. It's just giving the town an additional four hours of coverage without really impacting the budget.

Support staff will keep their current hours which are right now 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and Friday 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Customer service will have one staff member will work the new hours and the other staff member will work the new hours that we're proposing. Met with a lot of staff and I should say surprising, very receptive. They're excited to be able to leave an hour earlier on Monday, Tuesday, three hours earlier on Wednesday and work the four hours on Friday.

It's looking good. I think it's a good idea. I'm usually there anyways.

[Speaker 9] (13:59 - 14:04)
You know that was like half, kind of half people work one schedule and half the different?

[Speaker 5] (14:04 - 17:47)
Yeah, the department heads are going to work that 8 to 4 Monday, Tuesday and Thursday and for Wednesday, excuse me, and then Friday they'll work 8 to 12. Support staff which is non-department heads will work current schedule of Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 8 to 5, Wednesday 8 to 7. Keeps the town hall open longer without really impacting the budget.

Mary Ann McBath and I are currently meeting one-on-one with department heads and rolling out some 2025 expectations. All meetings will be completed by the end of next week. Each department head will be responsible for reporting weekly via email a report of what the department accomplished in the previous week, what the department goals are for the current week, and any problems slash solutions that they have encountered.

This information will be used for future TA reports. We've also worked with my team to create a tracking sheet for flex slash comp time to properly track comp time. As I said, I'm not implying that compensatory time has been abused over the years, but I do know that it wasn't properly being tracked.

Mary Ann created a form. The new form must be completed by employees prior to the comp time. I'll approve it and then they'll be able to bank that time or they can use flex time.

What I've worked out with department heads is each one of our contracts is we're expected to work a reasonable amount of overtime, so we've all agreed that two hours is a reasonable amount of work overtime. So if a department head has a meeting and they're there for two hours, it's basically on them. Anything over, they're entitled to comp time or flex time.

Comp time meaning they can bank it to take a day off in the future. Flex time is if it's a late meeting, they want to come in an hour late. If it was an hour, they can come in late the next day.

Once again, it's been pretty receptive with the employees. We're also looking to have a new employee handbook published soon. It is currently being edited, edited one last time.

One day we'll go out to town council before it is published. This handbook will cover many personnel policies that may not have been previously covered. We do have an employee.

We do not have an employee handbook, just a personnel policy that was last updated in 2022. All right. And then I just want to add that these changes are in no way meant to criticize any former T.

A. S. Or people that were in charge before.

I would consider these changes nothing more than a difference in management style. So happy that they've been received very well. All right.

And one final part of my report is I've asked the chair is Fletcher to please add to the next agenda a discussion and possible vote on a financial transition audit. This type of audit is not an annual audit of the books and records, nor is it a forensic audit. Transition audit is traditionally done by an independent CPA firm by conducting certain tests or reviews or either of the finances of the organization or organizational review.

During that conversation, the board can discuss and determine whether there are any financial risks by the incoming town administrator. The review would need to be an independent in nature by hiring an outside firm, and the results of the audit would be public document. Hoping to have that on the next agenda.

You're so pleased.

[Speaker 1] (17:48 - 17:50)
Tell them that they're dying.

[Speaker 10] (17:51 - 18:00)
The last thing I'll have to look at the transcript because somebody just texted me and said that the team wasn't working right at the beginning of the meeting and asked if we could do a public comment.

[Speaker 1] (18:01 - 18:08)
Yes, right after the TA report, we'll do a public comment. Does anybody have an inquiry? David?

[Speaker 6] (18:08 - 18:29)
Yeah, Gino, a few things. So you mentioned in the public works, sewer force main repair on the Hot Street for $98,373, and you said you used ARPA funds. How is...

Didn't we vote ARPA funds at our last meeting? How does that work?

[Speaker 5] (18:30 - 18:39)
So I think we shifted some of the money around. It was the $2.5 million Kings Beach ARPA funds. It wasn't the 4.5 ton ARPA funds.

[Speaker 1] (18:39 - 18:47)
You can use the 4.5 ARPA funds, because at our last meeting, the language is water and sewer infrastructure.

[Speaker 5] (18:48 - 18:52)
Right, but the concern was that was already accounted for for most of it, wasn't it?

[Speaker 1] (18:52 - 19:09)
I'm not really sure. I just know that you have a pretty wide window because you're gonna have more than just 1.8 over at Fisherman's. You're gonna have to go into the loans.

So either way, water and sewer should still be able to...

[Speaker 6] (19:09 - 19:18)
So once these ARPA funds are gone, how do we pay for something breaking in the future, in 2025 for... Sewer enterprise fund.

[Speaker 5] (19:20 - 19:46)
And there are sufficient funds. Right now, there's not. We all know that.

But going forward, there will be. By the time we exhaust the ARPA funds, I'm very confident that we're gonna have funds in that account. Fortunately, the rates are gonna skyrocket this year.

Sure. Skyrocket how? How much?

I don't know. We haven't done anything yet. We just know that there's a negative balance right now, and we're gonna have to account for that, plus paying off the loans for...

[Speaker 1] (19:46 - 19:59)
I think we have to... You have to look into everything. I don't...

I'm not sure that we have a real drop-dead number on that, right? Yeah, so it's got to do a little bit of research there.

[Speaker 6] (19:59 - 20:02)
Okay, so we have a deficit in the sewer?

[Speaker 1] (20:02 - 20:20)
No, I don't know that for a fact. I'm hearing there's a possibility of a deficit. I don't know.

I mean, I'm hearing from one individual that there's a deficit, and I'm hearing from another individual that there's not a deficit, so one of the reasons we're asking for a transition audit will help make these really clear.

[Speaker 6] (20:20 - 20:21)
Okay, and then...

[Speaker 1] (20:21 - 20:25)
Wait, Amy, Amy, Amy, you go ahead and comment.

[Speaker 18] (20:25 - 21:00)
Hi, so we do not currently have a deficit. We are projected to, if we continue on the trend that we are, for the upcoming and future year. So we are going to have to propose a rate increase.

We're currently working on that. And part of the transition audit will also look so we have any recommendations to see if the way that we're doing them is sufficient, or if they recommend, as an independent third party, if those rates should be increased more than what we're currently doing, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's

[Speaker 6] (21:08 - 21:30)
the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way that we're doing them, and if that's the way

[Speaker 5] (21:30 - 21:35)
The end of August. Okay, so beach season. Beach season, exactly.

Okay. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (21:35 - 21:39)
I had heard rumors that it was going to be at a different time. I wouldn't make sense.

[Speaker 9] (21:39 - 21:40)
It wouldn't make sense.

[Speaker 6] (21:40 - 21:41)
Okay, great. Thank you.

[Speaker 9] (21:42 - 21:52)
I have a couple of questions to follow up on that. So when would we need to, what's the 15K, the 15K is for the three-month rental.

[Speaker 5] (21:53 - 21:55)
Right, well, it's the deposit on the three-month rental.

[Speaker 9] (21:55 - 21:58)
It's the deposit. Okay, that's okay.

[Speaker 5] (21:58 - 22:00)
All right. That's okay.

[Speaker 9] (22:00 - 22:02)
So when would we need to vote on that?

[Speaker 5] (22:03 - 22:15)
Roughly. In the next month or so. So Lynn has put down the $30,000 deposit with the understanding that we may support Abbott.

Gotcha. With no promises.

[Speaker 1] (22:16 - 22:53)
Correct. So the issue here is, and I had reported back on, I reported on this about six weeks ago when Mayor Nicholson is requesting that we participate, but he made it very clear to the mayor that we will not be participating without all of the information presented to us. As of today, we still don't have all of the information.

So we're waiting on that. You know, I am concerned that the water and sewer is supporting 15K without even knowing what all the information is looking like.

[Speaker 5] (22:53 - 23:07)
Well, they do. I was at the meeting when they voted on it. They do have most of the information.

The only thing they really don't know is the final cost, you know, the $500,000. Is it $500,000? Is it $600,000?

But the client felt it was confident it's in the ballpark.

[Speaker 22] (23:08 - 23:09)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (23:11 - 23:11)
Go ahead.

[Speaker 9] (23:12 - 23:13)
I'm probably going to go to the same place you are.

[Speaker 1] (23:16 - 23:22)
So let's just say, are we going to even go one step further? Let's just say we put in a pilot.

[Speaker 9] (23:22 - 23:22)
Yep.

[Speaker 1] (23:23 - 23:44)
Put in a pilot. The pilot looks like it's successful. We still have to have a serious conversation of where this machinery is going to go, and that's a very serious issue here in Swanscot, which the mayor and the state representatives have been made aware of.

[Speaker 22] (23:45 - 23:46)
I agree.

[Speaker 1] (23:46 - 23:50)
So is that conversation being had at the water and sewer infrastructure meetings?

[Speaker 5] (23:51 - 23:56)
Not necessarily, but I have forwarded that information to Mayor Nicholson directly.

[Speaker 1] (23:56 - 23:57)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (23:58 - 24:23)
We're going to probably have it. I don't want to speak for anybody, but there may be an issue with where they desire to put that right now. In the location right now, they're thinking about putting a permanent facility.

My public recommendation was three new ocean, and that's a small lot. They can squeeze it in there, but we need to discuss that, whether we want to put that in Swanscot, or is there another location?

[Speaker 1] (24:25 - 24:27)
Okay. Doug?

[Speaker 9] (24:31 - 24:50)
So I'm not even super clear about even the super preliminary results. I think Liz came in here and did a brief oral, but we would have that type of little mini package before we have to vote on the 15, because the 15 is really kind of voting on the 500, right?

[Speaker 1] (24:51 - 24:51)
Right.

[Speaker 9] (24:51 - 24:52)
Exactly.

[Speaker 1] (24:53 - 24:59)
Right. So we're going to just need some type of an ETA.

[Speaker 5] (25:00 - 25:03)
So we meet every Friday if anybody wants to be part of that meeting.

[Speaker 11] (25:05 - 25:18)
Can I ask a follow-up? Yeah. Do you feel that the City of Lynn is so confident in making the pilot happen that if we chose not to participate, they would figure out a way to still do it?

[Speaker 5] (25:20 - 25:20)
Potentially.

[Speaker 11] (25:21 - 25:22)
Okay. Is that funny?

[Speaker 5] (25:23 - 25:31)
Yeah. Kind of, yeah. Yeah.

They know they're going forward right now without a firm commitment from the council. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (25:33 - 25:59)
Are there any, are there funds that are, you know, I know there's been consultants and kind of oral agreements back and forth between the Town of Swampscott and the City of Lynn. Are there funds that are owed to Swampscott from the City of Lynn and vice versa? Are those documented and memorialized?

They are. They are?

[Speaker 5] (25:59 - 26:06)
Yep. Okay. So there's two sets of expenditures.

One, they've agreed half, and the other one we're still going to have to work on a little bit.

[Speaker 1] (26:08 - 26:32)
So I think the problem is, let's be real clear. Yep. The problem is the town administrator had made an offer to Lynn that we would do the entire, what do you call that, what do you want to call that study?

Study. The steering committee study. The steering committee study to the tune of, I think it was 183 or 187.

[Speaker 5] (26:32 - 26:33)
187.

[Speaker 1] (26:33 - 27:07)
Okay. And according to Lynn, our town administrator committed to paying the whole thing. According, in a conversation I've had with our town administrator, that they were going to be paying for half of it, that there was a conversation.

So now Gino is in the situation of having to work this out and find something agreeable between both parties. The one concern that I have is that that study was paid for out of the enterprise fund. And that needs to be looked into.

[Speaker 9] (27:08 - 27:12)
Paid out of the 2.5 ARPA?

[Speaker 1] (27:13 - 27:16)
No. It was paid out of the enterprise fund.

[Speaker 9] (27:18 - 27:28)
Can we next time or send around or whatever just a summary of that? Yes. Because even a little bit like this 98,000 too, I don't think we were.

[Speaker 1] (27:28 - 27:29)
Send me copies of the invoices.

[Speaker 9] (27:30 - 27:49)
No, no, no. I don't mean that. I just mean like I don't think, I don't remember being aware that we were going to use ARPA for this $98,000.

And so I believe that it should come back through here if we're going to make kind of major adjustments in the way that we're spending the 2.5. Okay?

[Speaker 22] (27:51 - 27:51)
Yeah.

[Speaker 9] (27:51 - 28:07)
So it would be good to have an update about what we're now seeing for that 2.5. It all makes sense in the context if we're going to have to do another 250,000 for the UV, right? That all kind of fits together.

[Speaker 1] (28:09 - 28:17)
I have a question on following up on the do you know where we are with the SRF loans?

[Speaker 5] (28:18 - 28:25)
Yes. Actually, Liz made the phone call. We should have an answer within the next couple of weeks.

We've applied for it.

[Speaker 1] (28:26 - 28:26)
Right.

[Speaker 5] (28:26 - 28:31)
And they're reviewing them as we speak, the state, and we should have an answer within two weeks.

[Speaker 1] (28:31 - 29:03)
And can we also get on the calendar how the SRF loans, what the application dates are for not just this one but for the future ones? Yep. So that we can keep rolling that in.

And my other question is on the construction with Greene's on the Fuller Ave, Cedar Hill Terrace, and Aspen Road, once that's worked on, how do we turn around and test to see if that's made a difference in anything? What's the procedure there?

[Speaker 5] (29:03 - 29:22)
So once they finish all the work as part of the 1.7, we're going to test the outfall to see if their results have improved. My guess is the answer is they're going to be improved. But are they going to get to that 104 number?

We'll find out. They have to improve because we found broken pipes all over the area.

[Speaker 1] (29:23 - 29:30)
Do we test incrementally, like during different manhole covers?

[Speaker 5] (29:30 - 29:31)
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (29:31 - 29:31)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (29:34 - 29:39)
The big one is the manhole cover right behind 400 Humphrey Street. It's getting a high hit.

[Speaker 1] (29:40 - 30:17)
Okay. And then my last request is can you just work on what are we doing as far as rodent control, especially off of Blaney? What is the Board of Health actually doing?

What are the actions going in there? Okay. Okay.

Now, because we had an issue with ‑‑ we had a technical issue, we're just going to go back to resident comment for a second of people in mind. So, Em?

[Speaker 10] (30:28 - 30:29)
Hi. You can speak.

[Speaker 21] (30:30 - 30:32)
You can unmute yourself.

[Speaker 18] (30:50 - 30:51)
That's making a problem.

[Speaker 21] (30:51 - 30:53)
Oh, Mike, you can talk.

[Speaker 1] (30:59 - 31:14)
Okay. Well, you can come back later. Let's now move to our joint meeting with the Housing Authority, if the Housing Authority wants to open your meeting.

[Speaker 16] (31:28 - 31:34)
Hi. My name is Charles Patzios. I'm the chair of the Swanscot Housing Authority and also the governance appointee to the Housing Authority.

[Speaker 1] (31:34 - 31:40)
Mr. Patzios, could you call your meeting to order and then have a vote of your board to open up your meeting?

[Speaker 16] (31:40 - 31:53)
Oh, I'm sorry. You said that, and I ‑‑ so I'd like to entertain a motion to open the meeting. I'll call the vote of the meeting.

Do I have to push this?

[Speaker 20] (31:53 - 31:57)
Testing. Can you hear me? Yes.

Okay. I move that we open the meeting with the Housing Authority.

[Speaker 16] (31:58 - 32:01)
Okay. So the meeting is open. Do you have a second?

He seconded.

[Speaker 1] (32:01 - 32:04)
Okay. All in favor?

[Speaker 16] (32:04 - 32:05)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (32:05 - 32:06)
There you go.

[Speaker 16] (32:08 - 32:57)
So we're here this evening. Thank you for the invitation. We appreciate the opportunity to meet with the select board.

Thank you. We received some time ago a resignation of one of the members on the Housing Authority, and it's our responsibility to collectively come up with a recommendation, a nominee, if you will, that we present to the select board. The select board then decides if they'd like to confirm that recommendation of the Housing Authority.

So we are here this evening to accomplish that. The nominee that we're bringing forth is Deb Nutter, and the opportunity that we have this evening is to have you guys maybe ask some questions or whatever it is that formally you would like to do to confirm our recommendation to the Swampscot Select Board to seat Deb.

[Speaker 1] (33:04 - 33:08)
So, Ms. Nutter, would you like to come up and say a few words?

[Speaker 17] (33:09 - 33:10)
You can do that.

[Speaker 1] (33:10 - 33:12)
Oh, you're there? Comfortable.

[Speaker 17] (33:14 - 34:08)
Hi. I recently retired. I've been in the affordable housing industry for 45 years.

My dad and I started working together back in July of 1979 on the private side. We did a lot of development in Maine and Massachusetts, mostly affordable. And then in 1992, he and my mother and I formed a nonprofit called the Caleb Foundation, and the Caleb Foundation now serves over 5,000 residents throughout New England from Bangor out to North Adams down to Waterbury, Connecticut.

And so I don't know public housing, obviously, as well, because I've been on the private side. But I'm looking forward to a crash course and ready to help in any way I can.

[Speaker 1] (34:11 - 34:21)
Sounds like we're really lucky to have you. So does anybody have any questions for Ms. Nutter?

[Speaker 6] (34:21 - 35:03)
I just have a few comments. You know, Deb, I think we're incredibly lucky to have you share your knowledge and your expertise around housing with the Swampscott Housing Authority. I think it's certainly something that we've had discussions for probably the last year about moving forward with a feasibility study to potentially redevelop.

So I think that your skill set really will fit in well with those initiatives. And I'm incredibly supportive of your addition to the Swampscott Housing Authority, and welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker 17] (35:05 - 35:11)
I'm also at the Senior Center, thanks to my sister, once a week helping people with housing questions.

[Speaker 1] (35:12 - 35:34)
Oh, good. Awesome. All right, does anybody have any other questions for Ms. Nutter or the Housing Authority?

Okay, so can I have a motion to accept Debbie Nutter as the next member of the Housing Authority? So moved. Second.

All in favor?

[Speaker 16] (35:35 - 35:35)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (35:36 - 35:38)
Thank you, Debbie. Thank you.

[Speaker 16] (35:38 - 35:43)
And I'll entertain a motion to close the meeting.

[Speaker 20] (35:44 - 35:46)
Here, I make a motion to close the Housing Authority meeting.

[Speaker 1] (35:46 - 35:50)
Do you have to make a motion to accept Ms. Nutter? We did that.

[Speaker 16] (35:51 - 35:52)
We had done that previously.

[Speaker 20] (35:52 - 35:56)
We did previously, yeah. Okay. So I make a motion to close our meeting.

[Speaker 16] (35:56 - 36:08)
Do we have a second? Very beautiful, all those in favor? Aye.

Wonderful, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

The microphone is still hanging on.

[Speaker 1] (36:08 - 36:17)
Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Okay, so we're going to try resident comment one more time.

Mr. McClung?

[Speaker 19] (36:30 - 36:30)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (36:32 - 36:35)
Diane, is he allowed to unmute?

[Speaker 18] (36:35 - 36:44)
As far as I know, he should just be able to unmute himself. I have him unmuted. Amy, can you help?

[Speaker 21] (36:50 - 36:50)
Sorry, Mike.

[Speaker 11] (36:57 - 36:59)
He keeps putting his hand up and down. That part we can see.

[Speaker 18] (37:02 - 37:05)
Mike, you did, yeah. Oh, I can see it.

[Speaker 22] (37:05 - 37:07)
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 12] (37:08 - 40:17)
Appreciate gentlemen carrying a technical disorder. I'm sure it was just an innocent issue. Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair, members of the board, residents, town staff, my name is Michael McClung, 64 Colorado.

Tonight I am appearing in my official capacity as town moderator. First, I would like to underscore Gino's comments. The trauma of learning 100 miles more is a real school that was something that I think we'd all like to look behind us.

But tonight, I'd like to share some concerns I've been hearing from several town meeting members about SWAT board. First of all, the public has heard absolutely nothing from this board about the citizens petition filed in early December with over 200 signatures verified by the town clerk. In hopes of avoiding a special town meeting's last minute and disorganized involving just held, I'd hope for some sort of discussion by this board regarding setting a date.

Under Mass. General Law, Chapter 39, Section 10, a special town meeting should already have been held to hear this petition, said there's been zero discussion by this board, not even a public acknowledgement of the receipt of the petition. We can only assume you've taken the unprecedented decision to ignore it entirely.

This remedy of petition to town meeting is one of the most important safeguards of our democracy, predating even the Declaration of Independence. I am not sure what's gained by turning a deaf ear to more than 200 of your constituents. Moreover, I believe it runs the risk of perpetuating a pattern of disrespect by this board toward our town bodies, town meeting most particularly.

Secondly, several town meeting members have inquired about the sudden departure of the town administrator. According to the late item article, December 3rd, the town administrator resigned more than a month ago, yet to date residents have heard nothing from Select Board, not even an acknowledgement that he actually departed. The day that news broke, I sent an official mail to, email to the Select Board Finance Committee and School Committee regarding the next steps required under our town charter to select a new town administrator.

Specifically, the creation of a selection committee, under which you, the Finance Committee, and the School Committee each have an appointee. I've heard back from the other two bodies, but I've heard nothing from you. It's also concerning that Select Board has waited until tonight to post an agenda item for discussion of possible vote on an interim administrator.

Shouldn't that discussion and appointment have occurred hours following the town administrator's departure? Not a month later? Who has officially been running the town since then?

In short, I am not sure what is driving Select Board's complete lack of communication and transparency with town meeting, town officials, and the public. But your credibility, our credibility, is suffering as a result. I thank you for taking these remarks in the spirit of constructive criticism toward our shared goals.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (40:17 - 40:24)
Thank you, Mr. Moderator Michael McClellan. Next on the agenda.

[Speaker 6] (40:24 - 40:27)
So wait. So why aren't we talking about the citizen's petition?

[Speaker 1] (40:28 - 40:38)
We can talk about it. We're at resident comment. I'm not going to be addressing.

The citizen's petition is actually on the next agenda. It's already on the next agenda.

[Speaker 6] (40:38 - 40:53)
I mean, we have 200 certified signatures. Opinions matter. We want to hear everyone's opinion.

But, you know, we're going to disregard the opinions of 200 residents as it pertains to this matter.

[Speaker 1] (40:53 - 40:57)
This is not on the agenda. So we're not in a position where we can talk about it.

[Speaker 6] (40:57 - 41:02)
I mean, right now, we have a Select Board that's gone against the wishes of town meetings. It's gone against the actual RFP.

[Speaker 1] (41:03 - 41:05)
It's gone against the RFP process.

[Speaker 6] (41:05 - 41:06)
It's gone against the veterans.

[Speaker 1] (41:07 - 41:09)
It's gone against the DFW leadership.

[Speaker 6] (41:09 - 41:11)
And now we're going against Mass General Law.

[Speaker 1] (41:12 - 41:23)
Thank you, Mr. Grishman. Next on our agenda is the Planning Board proposed bylaw changes. Thank you, Mr. Dooley.

[Speaker 2] (41:25 - 44:50)
Hello. Thanks for having me here tonight. I wanted to have this meeting with you all in an effort to, as the Planning Board gets ready for our annual town meeting this spring, to update this board as to the initiatives that we're hoping to prioritize over the next four months to bring to town meeting to adjust our zoning bylaws.

The thought process is we want to make sure that this board is comfortable with the initiatives that we've outlined as being a priority for us, so that the next few months we can spend diligently working on bylaws that we'll be confident will make the town meeting warrant in May. Diane, I believe I sent you a PowerPoint today. Thank you.

There we go. You can advance to the next slide. So tonight I'll go through some of the priorities that our board has discussed for this annual town meeting in May, and also two longer-term priorities that we think deserve a little bit more runway that we'd like to pursue for an annual town meeting in 2026 as well.

So my hope here tonight, as I mentioned, is to update you on what we're looking at now and the initiatives we'd be looking to pursue next year, so we can have some of your buy-in and then begin some of the community engagement process for what I believe are going to be some lengthy conversations with the town. Next slide, please. So the first zoning bylaw update that we're looking to make is to the floodplain and wetland protections and coastal flood overlay districts.

The background on this is the Federal Emergency Management Agency is expected to update their flood insurance rate maps in 2025. As a result of those updates, since we participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, we also have to update our zoning bylaws and our flood maps to match the ones issued by FEMA. So the State Department of Conservation and Recreation works with municipalities across the state to draft bylaws to make us in compliance with the FEMA flood maps.

So I know Margie and Marissa from Community Development Office have already been working with DCR to look at the draft bylaws that they have. And in essence, the only efforts we have here are to ensure that our local bylaw and flood maps are in compliance with the state and federal maps. Some additional efforts we hope to undertake as part of this is also to work to ensure the language that we have in these two zoning bylaw provisions are consistent among the two bylaws and consistent with the language used in the state and federal maps and state and federal flood insurance programs.

Some of the language we use is not consistent with some of the federal language, so we've had conversations already with the Conservation Commission to ensure that they're bought in on this process and they're involved so that all of our efforts can be working towards a shared goal. Is there any questions on this before I advance to the next bylaw? Yes.

[Speaker 9] (44:50 - 45:27)
Hey, Ted. Is there something about how even the flood insurance rate maps and flood insurance study are kind of like a floor in terms of what we have to do in terms of our coastal flood overlay district? Do we have authority to go?

I may be getting this wrong. Is that like a very conservative version that comes out of that compared to like what?

[Speaker 2] (45:27 - 46:12)
The maps, from my understanding, are what the National Flood Insurance Program covers. The image on the right obviously shows the 2014 maps that the town has adopted, and it kind of cuts off the Marblehead side, but it goes further up in the Blodgett Ave area as well. The updates that we'd be doing here were just to be ensuring that the maps that we're using for the most part, the updates, are just to ensure the maps that we're using are matching the federal maps.

In terms of some of the additional other zoning restrictions that we have for construction in a flood zone, those I believe we enacted a few years ago at town meeting. We're not changing any of the updates that were made at, I believe it was 2021 town meeting.

[Speaker 22] (46:14 - 46:15)
I want to say yes.

[Speaker 2] (46:15 - 46:39)
Yeah. So we're not going to make any adjustments to the elevation levels that we require construction to be had in those areas. It's just strictly language consistency to ensure we're in compliance with the state and federal language, and then the maps to ensure the maps are in line.

All of the other protections and provisions of the zoning in those areas, we're not touching. Those are relatively recent as of the last few years.

[Speaker 14] (46:40 - 47:55)
Generally speaking, Doug, when it comes to local zoning regulations versus those that are imposed by the state, if a municipality wants to further restrict what the state already protects, there are circumstances under which we can do so, but not unreasonably regulate it. So, you know, if we wanted to put something forward, it would have to get further approved by the attorney general, as does all of our zoning changes to the bylaw post town meeting. But again, it can't be unreasonable.

Most of the standards for the flood overlay zones are based on the state building code as well. And then there are separate to the zoning bylaws, there are going to be stricter standards as far as the conservation commission is concerned with how they deal with construction in floodplain areas. They call it land subject to coastal storm flowage.

DEP really didn't have any standards for construction in those areas, and they will be coming out with additional standards or brand new standards that didn't exist prior. So conservation might have a greater enforcement authority or regulatory authority in construction floodplain versus planning or zoning.

[Speaker 9] (47:57 - 48:14)
And we don't know exactly what these maps are yet. Is that correct? They haven't been released yet.

No. So is it theoretically possible that they would force us to change what our zoning is because of the flooding?

[Speaker 2] (48:16 - 48:56)
The districts will change. I don't think we're going to be less prone to flooding in 2025. So the districts will change.

What our zoning requires in those districts will not change. For example, in the coastal flood area overlay zones, if I were to build a new construction home, utilities, for example, have to be elevated above the average base flood elevation. So that requirement would be consistent next year.

Just the size and the area of the overlay zone would change to match the flood maps.

[Speaker 9] (48:57 - 48:58)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (48:59 - 49:25)
Yes. A couple things. Thank you, Ted.

So one question is how much has the map actually changed since the last revision? I'm just interested. We don't need that tonight, but I would be interested to compare and contrast.

And then other than that, like in our packet, what's being presented here on page 41, 42? Is this the as-is?

[Speaker 2] (49:25 - 49:44)
Yes. Everything you have in your packets is the as-is language for the parts of the zoning bylaws that we are going to be revisiting. We're too early in the process to have anything more than a concept of here's what we're looking to look at.

There's no language that I have to present to you yet. That's what the next few months would be proposed to be doing.

[Speaker 6] (49:44 - 49:49)
Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that this was the existing, and then we'll see if that's mine.

[Speaker 2] (49:50 - 49:54)
And that's consistent for the next few provisions that I'll go through tonight. Thank you for clarifying.

[Speaker 9] (49:54 - 50:00)
Then one last little question. Will we know the FEMA new maps before town meetings?

[Speaker 2] (50:01 - 54:01)
That is our hope. Okay. We wouldn't be able to update these until the new maps are out, but we're planning on the new maps being released.

I think they said sometime in February is what they were projecting, but we're relying on guidance from DCR for most of this, and they work with most of the towns across the commonwealth who are subject to wetlands and coastal flood. If there's no other questions on this, I will move on to the next exciting zoning bylaw update. Accessory dwelling units.

As most of you know, Swampscott adopted an accessory dwelling unit bylaw at Springtown meeting in 2023, section 5.12.0.0. However, in August of this past year, Governor Healey signed into law the Affordable Homes Act, and part of the Affordable Homes Act amended the statewide zoning acts to allow accessory dwelling units up to 900 square feet to be built by right in any district that is zoned single family. So what we are proposing to do here is to amend our local accessory dwelling unit bylaw to be in complete compliance with what the statewide regulations are with this new law, which goes into effect on February 8th.

To be clear, the state law will supersede what our zoning says regardless of what we do. However, we want to make sure that our bylaw locally matches the state bylaw so that we're in unison and there's no potential for any confusion between state law and our zoning bylaw. To the right, you can see examples of ADUs.

And on the next page, highlight some differences between what our existing local bylaw allows and what the new state regulations might change. So our current bylaw only allows one accessory dwelling unit per lot. The new regulations allow, can allow for more than that as long as they're approved by special permit from the zoning board of appeals.

So we'll be making that change. Our current bylaw allows, restricts ADUs to require the owner occupy either the accessory unit or the primary dwelling on the property. This new statewide regulations will prohibit us doing that.

So we'll be striking that provision. One off three parking spot requirement will remain for any ADU that is not within half a mile of the transit station. So that's an MBTA commuter rail and regulations are still coming out in the next few weeks to say whether that also means bus stations.

But again, we'd be in compliance with that as well. Bus stops, excuse me. And then no reduction in pervious areas where our current bylaw requires.

And we cannot impose any design standards on an ADU that are not, not also imposed on a single family home. So we would be matching again, the state requirements there and same for removal of trees or any shrubbery. We would be matching the state law, which would be ensuring that ADU has essentially the same requirements as a single family home in terms of design standards.

One other piece of this that is not listed here is municipalities are allowed some small control over ADUs in terms of restricting short-term rentals in the accessory unit. That is something that the planning board, at least in our preliminary conversations is in favor of restricting to ensure that ADUs are meant for at least in Swampscott meant for what the goal of the legislation that the governor signed was, which was to provide more housing opportunities and aging in place and for other needs. So that's something that we, at least our preliminary conversations would like to have in this bylaw is exerting that local control to prohibit short-term rentals of the accessory dwelling units.

Before I move on, is there any questions on the ADU section?

[Speaker 1] (54:03 - 54:04)
Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 6] (54:05 - 54:15)
Yeah. Ted, can you, can you just kind of walk us through this state change which may allow more than one ADU per lot to special permit? Like in what scenario would that?

[Speaker 2] (54:16 - 55:20)
So if you owned a, so there's several occurrences where that could happen. Let's say you owned a home with a 1200 foot carriage house that you're using right now as an accessory dwelling unit that's preexisting, nonconforming, quote unquote, that accessory dwelling unit is always going to be preexisting, nonconforming since this law is just going into effect in February. You could build a 900 square foot or yeah, 899 square foot ADU in your backyard by right, as long as it met all of the regulations in our current zoning bylaws from a dimensional perspective.

If you wanted to build two accessory dwelling units, you could get a special permit from the zoning board of appeals to have two 900 square foot ADUs on one residential property. So you could have one in your basement and you could build a freestanding one, for example, as long as you got a special permit from the zoning board to do so. Additionally, no, that's it, right?

That'd be pretty much it. Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (55:21 - 55:28)
If you want your parents and your in-laws to live with you guys on your property altogether, you'd be a saint if you wanted that.

[Speaker 2] (55:31 - 55:39)
So yeah, somebody technically could have two ADUs on a property, but any, any additional one beyond the first need is subject to a special permit from the zoning board of appeals.

[Speaker 6] (55:40 - 55:40)
Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (55:42 - 55:51)
Any other questions on ADUs? It sounds like a good progress. Yes.

I'm glad Swampscott was ahead of the curve on that one.

[Speaker 9] (55:51 - 55:55)
So I'm glad Swampscott's being urged to go a little further. Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (55:56 - 58:12)
Next is site plan special permits. So our current zoning bylaws grant the planning board authority to issue a site plan, special permit under section 5.4 0.0, which is required for many development and redevelopment projects in town. Essentially what it does is if you're building an addition of greater than 800 square feet onto your home, or you are tearing down a structure or buying an empty lot and building a house in excess of 3000 square feet, you have to come before the planning board and get a site plan, special permit.

In addition to any other permit you might need to get or release, you might need to get from the zoning board. That's how it's currently written. And what the planning board is looking to do is to amend the, the triggers that require someone to get a site plan, special permit.

So we would, we have not come down on what size and what the square footage number is going to be. But we've discussed anything from reducing the square footage for new construction in half to eliminating it entirely. To ensure that there is a more equitable opportunity for public participation in some of the design reviews that go through some of these processes.

As you can imagine someone being able to build an 800 square foot addition on their house, 801 square foot addition on their house and needing a site plan, special permit, but somebody down the street who's building a 2,999 square foot house and they don't need a special permit creates the appearance of something that might not make sense. So this is designed entirely to create some equity and to give the community and neighbors a greater sense of participation in some of the projects that are going on in town. With that being said, new construction in Swampscott is not something we, for single family homes, it's not something we see a lot, two projects a year, maybe three projects a year for single or two family new construction.

And this would only apply to residential residential. So any commercial structures, et cetera, we wouldn't make any changes to those. Those predominantly come before us no matter what happens for a site plan, special permit.

So it's strictly look at really the single family residential, single and two family residential.

[Speaker 11] (58:15 - 58:23)
I just ask in 2024 approximately how many site plan, special permits you guys reviewed?

[Speaker 14] (58:24 - 58:28)
Two 33 Puritan, 40 Eastman ave.

[Speaker 2] (58:30 - 58:30)
Essex street.

[Speaker 14] (58:30 - 58:34)
Is that beginning of, I believe that was 2023.

[Speaker 2] (58:34 - 58:41)
It might've spilled into the beginning of, I think it was January three, three, five.

[Speaker 14] (58:41 - 58:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (58:42 - 58:43)
Point three was 2023.

[Speaker 14] (58:43 - 58:44)
That was 2023.

[Speaker 2] (58:44 - 59:07)
Okay. So at least three, I would say some years we have a lot, but my first few years on the planning board, I think I looked at site plan, special permits every month, nonstop other years. We don't have quite as many, or we have really big projects that take up a lot of time and need site plan, special permits and 19,000 other pieces of relief for permits.

But predominantly it's a handful year.

[Speaker 14] (59:08 - 59:25)
We get of those three that we just mentioned. Only one of them was single family residential construction. That was two 33 Puritan.

The other two were eight unit multifamily developments. Okay. So those at any rate would come before the planning board, but we actually have the prospect of ADU 900 square foot.

Right. Yep.

[Speaker 2] (59:25 - 59:28)
That was an addition for four or so this past year.

[Speaker 14] (59:28 - 59:32)
Did you mention Essex, Essex 29?

[Speaker 2] (59:32 - 59:32)
No, you did.

[Speaker 14] (59:33 - 59:33)
Yep.

[Speaker 2] (59:33 - 59:49)
Yep. So not a ton, but enough to, to allow for some greater oversight before I move on to the next item. Are there any other questions on site plan, special permit amendments?

[Speaker 22] (59:50 - 59:51)
All right.

[Speaker 2] (59:52 - 1:02:57)
So the next two are zoning bylaw provisions that we look to engage on now for a review at annual town meeting in 2026. The first one is a short term rental bylaw. Many towns in the Commonwealth have bylaws, either through their general bylaws or their zoning bylaws that offer a regulatory framework for short term rentals.

This is something swab Scott's planning board has looked at on and off ever since I've been a member for four years now with varying levels of interest and a whole lot of research that has gone into it. Not only from Marissa from your, you know, ever since you joined to Molly O'Connor when she was our town planner and, and I believe Pete did some as well when he was here working. We feel that given some of the attention swamp Scott is getting short term rentals are not going to decrease in this town.

And there are likely to only increase in years to come. So we would like to provide a little bit more of a framework for how those are regulated here in town. There's a difference in process in many towns for how these are regulated.

Salem, for example, regulates their short term rentals through their zoning bylaws. Other towns pursue it through general general bylaws. Parts in some towns pursue it through both.

We feel as though the zoning bylaws is an appropriate way to regulate short term rentals that allow us triggers to, for example, have the building commissioner and his office regulate licenses and give inspections to ensure they are constructed and they are being operated in a safe and in a way that's compliant and continually compliant with mass state building code. And it also allows us to, should the board want to and should town meeting approve create districts that allow for short term rentals and districts that prohibit short term rentals. Our board does not have any predisposed ideas of how we would want to regulate this yet.

We're still in the research and investigation phase and conversation phase. But we do feel this is something that the town needs to be in the driver's seat on regulating and to ensure that we have a process so that if there are neighbor complaints, if there are any complaints that we have a way to regulate these and ensure fairness, not only to the property owners who are looking to exercise their property rights, but also to the neighbors in the community at large. So I'm here to suggest that our board start looking into this.

And I believe this is going to require a significant amount of community engagement. I think a lot of us have used Airbnbs before. I know my family uses Airbnbs and swaps out when they visit.

They're a great thing. We have a lot of folks in town who use this for income, which is a great, great tool and great resource for them. So we really want to ensure that we have community engagement on this topic before we dive into drafting language.

So that's why this is something that we're hoping to discuss now so that come spring next year, we have a bylaw that really has some community consensus around it, especially from not only our board, but your board and some of the other land use boards in town. Any thoughts or questions on this?

[Speaker 11] (1:02:59 - 1:03:32)
Yeah. I applaud the public engagement because it seems like we would have both opinions in town, the folks who use it for out of town guests or, you know, like my parents are out of town, they come in, they might use an Airbnb and then so they find a benefit to it. But then also neighbors, habitual turnover of their neighbors and might find an issue there.

But then also residents who have passive income from that. So it will be interesting to see sort of where the majority lands.

[Speaker 2] (1:03:34 - 1:04:22)
I think at the very least, this is at least supposed to give people an opportunity to find ways to, if there is a property that there is a problem with and their neighbor, they have an avenue to have their voice heard. I was, I had a neighbor who was a short term renter who had a short term rental and I went to town hall with two months after I moved in and there was not much recourse that could be done. And I didn't feel like that was, that was very comforting to feel like there was no avenue for that.

So this is in my mind a way to help guide conversation, a way to help guide regulation, but a way to give people input that they can feel if there's a problem, there's a way to be heard. And if it's a good thing to leave some guardrails for the community in terms of what the expectations are. And if the town requires a license, which many towns do, it's another good little income boost for the town.

Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:04:23 - 1:04:45)
Do we have an idea of how many short term rentals we have in town? One. And then two are, and I don't know the answer to this is, are these, are these short term rentals taxed as commercial properties?

And if, if not, do we have the ability to tax them as, as, as commercial properties? Just, just spitballing.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:45 - 1:05:12)
Your first, first question, how many are in Swampscott? I couldn't venture to guess how many, I know there's at least half, at least two dozen, you know, I've looked at them all the time. You know, my family visits a lot and they're like, oh, go look at this one, go look at that one.

Between VRBO, Airbnb, and all the other apps and programs and everything, there's a fair amount. So I wouldn't want to guess, but I'd say, you know, a couple dozen at least.

[Speaker 22] (1:05:12 - 1:05:12)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:12 - 1:05:27)
In terms of the tax rate, that's something way over my pay grade. So that's something I would ask our town, I would ask our town treasurer, our town accountant, if they're, if they have the ability to reclassify as a commercial property under a commercial tax rate.

[Speaker 6] (1:05:27 - 1:05:32)
And that was, the question was the ability to reclass as a, as a commercial property rather than a residential property.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:34 - 1:05:50)
I'm not sure as far as the future, but I just know right now we have, we do bring in income on our Airbnbs, but there, I don't think they would be classified as commercial. I don't think the classification changes. I think that they just take out a license and then.

[Speaker 6] (1:05:50 - 1:05:52)
They pay the 6% hotel motel.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:52 - 1:05:54)
I don't know if that's the exact rate they pay.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:54 - 1:06:13)
The hotel motel tax is equal with Airbnbs and short-term rentals as it is with a hotel motel room in terms of the property classification. That's I think what you're getting at. Can we tax it at the same rate that commercial properties are versus a residential and that's a, yeah, like I said, way over my pay grade.

Fair.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:14 - 1:06:40)
Are you saying. I'm just, I'm asking. So at, at, we changed the rate on the, the hotel rate back.

I think, I don't know, maybe I don't know what it was, but we changed the rate. And I do remember that there was a resident who got up, who did have Airbnbs and wanted to just reflect on that. That would have changing that rate would be a burden.

So I remember that.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:41 - 1:09:39)
Yep. Any other questions on short-term rentals before I move on And the final 2026 bylaw that I want to raise for conversation is our signage bylaw. Our zoning bylaws currently regulate signs in section 3.2 point 0.0. And that's anything from residential real estate signs to sandwich boards to commercial signs and that commercial signs include awnings lighted displays, window decals to the barbershop poles, et cetera, et cetera. Our board has looked at and has revised the signage bylaw at least one time since I've been on the board. But it has not ultimately made the town meeting more and we've revisited it time and time again. And it's something that our board feels strongly that over the next couple of years, it's something that we would like to revisit.

And the reason why I'm bringing it up now is because obviously this impacts a lot of our commercial businesses along Humphrey Street and in Venice Square. So we believe it would require a fair bit of working with the office of community development to work with our local business owners to get feedback on what our current bylaw is to get buy-in and to get their feedback as we draft a new bylaw in order to have them be participants. And obviously they're members of our community as well.

So we want to ensure that they have a voice in this. There are current bylaw does have a number of restrictions that are not followed currently along any of our, our commercial zones. For example lighted signs, which I'm sure you can drive down any of our streets and see are completely prohibited in our zoning bylaws.

So we would want to make sure that any company, if we do pursue this, that we can alert business owners, what signage they might currently that is not in compliance with their zoning bylaws, give them a opportunity to, to review that and look at, at their own advertising and ensure that they have the ability to, to communicate with us, whether they, you know, as we go through this process, you know their needs.

So we really want to be responsive to the community needs and that includes some of the commercial business owners in town. But also we, we do feel strongly that our zoning bylaws should be followed and that we needed to craft one that has community buy-in. So we have more compliance in terms of businesses adhere at businesses and in residential properties, adhering to our zoning bylaws in terms of signage.

So we'd like to start that process now. I know it's going to take a long time to kind of get that community engagement that we feel is important as we, as we look at these processes and look at these regulations. So that's something we'd look at starting after immediately after this town meeting to kind of start the ball rolling on the community engagement front, especially with our business owners.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:42 - 1:09:47)
Any questions? All right. Well, thank you, Ted.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:47 - 1:09:50)
All I got for you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:50 - 1:09:56)
That was very good. Thank you. Okay.

Next on our agenda is the retirement board updates.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:11 - 1:11:43)
I'm actually going to jump as Bob's very accustomed to me doing in our meetings. I'm just going to give me two minutes. Comments made about the select board.

I just would like to take this opportunity as the chairman of the retirement board, to tell you what a difference, and I'm not trying to butter people up, but what a difference we have seen in the last several years from the board. To have a chairperson as a liaison, who I know reports back to at our meetings, we're lucky because I know that she keeps you updated. We've had a bit of an antagonistic relationship, not with the board members, but it is what it is.

To that end, I'd like to actually tell you that hopefully the new acting and I have lunch on Friday to talk about the retirement board, first ever, and you all have my phone number and we really appreciate it, but I also want to give a big shout out to Eric Hartman. I've never seen a chairperson of a finance committee come to our meetings, sit down and go over numbers, explain. He has a lot of input too in terms of his understanding, which is light years ahead of where we've ever been.

I just want people in Swampscot to know, because we are such a big budget item, that it's been great working with all of you, and I know every one of you has my cell phone number and always will feel free to call me on anything. Now to the brains of the board, Bob Powell.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:45 - 1:11:46)
The answer is still no.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:48 - 1:11:51)
I think Diane, you have the presentation here. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:51 - 1:11:52)
I hope so, Bob.

[Speaker 7] (1:11:53 - 1:13:29)
All right. So just by way of background, Bob Powell, chair of the Council on Aging, co-chair of the Swampscot for All Ages, a member of the Swampscot Retirement Board, member of the 2035 Master Plan, member of the Community Life Center Task Force, and I might be blamed for having Town Hall reopened on Friday, do you know? I walked in on Friday morning at 8 o'clock to bump into Gino, and he said, what are you doing here?

I said, I don't know, really, I thought the place was open. He said, well, maybe. So my purpose today, I think, is mostly informational.

I'm not here to ask for a vote. I'm not asked, really, to go beyond what I'm going to describe tonight. A little bit of history about the COLA base for the retirees and would-be retirees of Swampscot.

In March of 2021, the Retirement Board voted unanimously to increase the COLA base from $13,000 to $14,000, and that would be effective July 1, 2021. And we submitted an article for the May town meeting, and prior to that, we had met with the FinCom, and we have asked for a COLA base increase for many years and had never really got beyond that meeting and never really had a warrant presented, to my recollection.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:29 - 1:13:32)
No, we've gone, we've increased it twice.

[Speaker 7] (1:13:32 - 1:15:05)
Right. But the last time before we increased it in March of 2021 was 2012, so almost a decade before we had increased it from the level of, from $12,000 to $13,000. And what we did at the time in 2021 was to meet with the FinCom to come up with metrics by which we would ask for a COLA base increase, and at the time, what we did was we agreed that there would be three triggers that would trigger us coming to FinCom and coming to the Select Board and then going ultimately to town meeting to request a COLA base increase.

And those triggers were an improvement in the funded ratio of the retirement fund, a look at how the Swampscot COLA base was performing relative to inflation, and then lastly, what was the, I'm sorry, what the COLA base was relative to other retirement systems, and then what was the purchasing power relative to CPI. So trigger one, and I'm here now to say that all these triggers have been met, and we will likely be coming to FinCom and Select Board in the future to ask for a COLA base increase. What that COLA base increase is or will be is yet unknown.

What the cost of the town will be is yet unknown. What the impact on the funding schedule will be is yet unknown. So none of that information I have today.

We'll have a better sense of that maybe after January when our actuarial, when Siegel comes back.

[Speaker 4] (1:15:06 - 1:15:08)
Yeah, actuarial numbers just aren't there yet.

[Speaker 7] (1:15:08 - 1:17:24)
So they've done a preliminary estimate, but on two-year-old data, we have that, but it's not worth sharing with anyone at the moment. And so, but come January, we'll have new data, we'll ask them to conduct a new review, and then we'll come for you with the analysis of that. So just by way of background, trigger one is the funded ratio.

It's increased 31% since 2017, and now is just five points away from the state average. So in 2017, it was 53.46%, meaning that we were like really underfunded, 50% of the fund was underfunded, and now we're 75% funded, so 25% away from being fully funded. By the way, our funding schedule calls for us to be fully funded by 2031, and I'll have a better sense of where that new funded ratio is come January.

Trigger two was how is the COLA base relative to the state average of the 104 retirement systems in Massachusetts, and we are at 14,000 now. The COLA base for the 104 retirement systems in Massachusetts is now 15,371, so we're 1,371 below the COLA base for that trigger. And then lastly, we looked at retirees who were at the COLA base in FY22 at $14,000, and what they would be at now if they were just getting their 3% COLA increase as we've voted on over the past three years.

And so someone who was at $14,000 in 2021 and getting a 3% COLA base would be at now at $15,260, but if you look at that same $14,000 and apply CPI to it, they would need $16,100 to maintain the same standard of living that they had back in 2021. So they are behind the curve. So all these three triggers have been met.

The last thing I'll mention is as 11-30-2024, there are 56 retirees who are at the 14,000 COLA base and below, and then there are 188 retirees who are earning more than $14,000. Of the 56 retirees who are earning $14,000 or less, two-thirds were full-time employees and one-third were part-time.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:26 - 1:17:55)
It's also important to note that, and we're going to get stuck on numbers here, that when we say part-time and retirement words, there's a minimum that they have to work, which is 20. 20 or less. Yeah.

So that part-time, it's not just working a couple hours a week. So we have by our, within the General Laws Chapter 32 on our own bylaws, we set the amount of time they have to work to be able to contribute to the retirement system.

[Speaker 7] (1:17:56 - 1:18:23)
So, for me, the next steps would be, come January, we'll get our new report from Siegel. We'll make a request to have them evaluate the effect of increasing the COLA base on the funding schedule and the unfunded liability, both at 3% and at 5%, and then we'll present those findings to the Select Board and FinCom, and then hopefully we'll present a warrant in May of 2025. Anything?

[Speaker 4] (1:18:23 - 1:19:49)
No. There's only one thing that I think, the last time you saw us, we were here with the state under General Laws Chapter 32, the most unusual move by the legislature ever, that you needed to approve an additional 2% one-time COLA increase. So that, there's only 10 communities in the state of Massachusetts that voted it down.

You were one of 10. So, thus, you always have to remember that all of our numbers we're presenting to you, you know, 90%, you know, percent of the boards have included that. Our numbers don't include that because we weren't granted that.

So it's not here to say, you know, whatever. I'm just telling you that you always have to remember that we're not working on numbers that include that one-time 2%, and which was based on incredible inflation, based on the post-COVID. There was a feeling amongst the state, including the State Retirement Board, for all the state employees, approved it that, like all people, many people in their jobs received some type of benefit or consideration of what the country was going through in our economy post-COVID.

That was the reason for the 2% request. And again, so our numbers, you always have to remember that we're working on numbers that most towns and cities had an extra 2% for a year.

[Speaker 9] (1:19:50 - 1:19:51)
Not all of us voted against that.

[Speaker 4] (1:19:52 - 1:21:09)
You know, and we get to live with the board's vote. That's, you know, that's just an edit there, but that is a little caveat to our numbers that we always would like to make sure we have. But I do look forward to having not only the relationship with the board, but again, I re-emphasize that, you know, whether it be Gene or whoever you do hire as your town administrator, I would ask it essential that they at least come in and know that we're working closely with us because it's such a big budget, and I think that for, I don't want to say hundreds of years, but forever, we're the mystery budget item, and we're the mystery board. I mean, we are an independent board, but there's no, it's such an unusual situation where you have an independent board so related to the town's budget. And I think dependency on the administration within our town government and open dialogue and working together in opposing, I mean, clearly it's not always going to be perfect.

And the only other shout-out I want to give is we really enjoy having Amy Saro as our fifth member. We traditionally haven't had as much input, and she's very good at letting us know kind of what's going on in the finance of the town, which has been great input. She's done a great job, too, for us.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:11 - 1:21:20)
Great. So I do have a question. Do you have a timeline that you're going to be working once you have the actuary?

Because the actuary will be in within the next two weeks, right?

[Speaker 4] (1:21:21 - 1:21:45)
We hope. Yeah. I would say, you know, we say January, but if it's the first week of February, what I'm, my plan is to get that before us in a meeting, our monthly meeting, or if I need to call a special meeting, do that.

And then, you know, I think at that point, you know, on the phone with Eric saying, let's get in, squeeze us in so we can get the process a little earlier than we would usually.

[Speaker 1] (1:21:46 - 1:22:04)
Okay. Because we have an issue with the process right now because we're working on the budgets right now. So I just think that I do know from being on the finance committee there are many, many times the retirement board didn't come forward with what their requests were.

And I think it was often a timing issue.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:05 - 1:22:53)
The only thing I can say is traditionally, and some, if we're looking at our old numbers, which we said are irrelevant, but we suspect that any COLA increase would probably not affect. Correct. So the fund, the funding schedule currently would be, is the good funding schedule probably going into that.

But there's not going to be a significant increase to the town's contribution this year. That's what I've always seen in the COLA numbers. I can't guarantee that.

But it's usually not a significant increase. So I think, I know that Eric's probably working, I wouldn't guess, he's working with last year's number and in his head knows what increase that would be because it's on the funding schedule now. So it's not going to be a huge change for this year.

Anything that would affect the budget.

[Speaker 7] (1:22:53 - 1:23:05)
You might recall, Mary Ellen, from that meeting where our actuary came in, was they back-ended the COLA increase. All those numbers were sort of on target except in the final year.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:07 - 1:23:23)
My concern is just making sure that we have really good communication and that we don't end up getting to the end line and then all of a sudden you guys didn't get a shot in there and we didn't. I just want to make sure that we're in front of it.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:23 - 1:23:36)
Those numbers really, the number they have on our funding schedule that is good numbers, well, there's no anticipation there'd be any change in what would already be due from the time which they have that funding schedule and that's the number that they're working on.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:36 - 1:23:55)
And last year you did a pretty lengthy, I don't know, you want to call it a clinic or a seminar on retirement. And I asked Nancy to send that link out to all the select board members. Did you folks get that?

I'll double check where that link is.

[Speaker 4] (1:23:55 - 1:23:58)
I'll make sure tomorrow. She's watching, so she'll know.

[Speaker 1] (1:23:58 - 1:24:11)
Okay, so there's a link that if you could just, in your free time, just look at that link and then you'll get a better education of retirement and COLA and how things work.

[Speaker 7] (1:24:12 - 1:24:32)
And I'll just say, Mary Ellen, my goal, I think ever since 2021 when we established these metrics was to work more hand in glove versus coming to the FinCon at the last minute to say, hey, can we have a COLA increase? That was just insane to my way of thinking. And it's hard to get what you want if you don't have sort of the justification for it.

Well, we brought you on.

[Speaker 1] (1:24:33 - 1:24:44)
The other question was there was always an issue as far as town employees not benefiting from Social Security. And so now how does this new- State employees too?

[Speaker 4] (1:24:44 - 1:26:37)
All federal. I mean, all state. There were seven states where there was, so for all, the best example is U of M.

My career, starting with high school jobs through owning my own practice, the money I put into Social Security, based on the old system, there would be an offset. So I would get probably an eighth of what I was due or you would be due. Your regular Social Security.

But the offset also was incredibly unfair to the spouse. So that when I would pass, because I'm in retirement, the person, someone like Tara, who's been working forever, her benefit would take that almost same significant hit. It was passed under Ronald Reagan.

And that was something that for years, and I'm a member of the Republicans and the Seepers, which is a national retirement system. We've gone down, I've been to five legislative conferences in Washington, D.C. as part of that. We go to this hill, we know who's in favor.

It was, I'm not going to say it was, well, it was mostly Democrats. But ironically, you had really a great deal of interest and pushing forward of this by Republicans, including Senator Maine. Collins.

Thank you. She was one of the leaders of this. So it really, it had a bipartisan always.

It just was to get it fully bipartisan. And it passed more overwhelmingly than probably most any bill in this last legislative Congress. So it was almost unanimous.

[Speaker 9] (1:26:37 - 1:26:56)
Can I ask a question about the funding schedule? Are you all analyzing whether or not right now we're supposed to be fully funded by 2031? We've had past conversations about whether or not to push that out a year.

Is that what you're basically saying here in terms of backloading it?

[Speaker 4] (1:26:57 - 1:27:24)
Well, no, backloading is just the funding schedule, how it, every funding schedule in every community and every system, kind of that last couple years will be, or last year, will be a bigger hit. Increase. But then the next year, it will just be the normal cost of, you know, comes down radically.

It's not that you don't stop paying, but it's paying for the actual expenses. That's the way to put it.

[Speaker 7] (1:27:24 - 1:27:41)
So we're required to increase it by 3% per year, according to PARAC. Some communities are at 5%, some are even higher. But the analysis that we gave was 3% to 5% and see what effect it would have on the ABC, the actual determined contribution.

[Speaker 4] (1:27:41 - 1:28:39)
And it will be also interesting when we do meet with the Finance Committee and with Eric, there was pretty much a, not a line in the sand, it was just an incredible amount of support within the Finance Committee not to extend it. They were, that was one of the best things they said about our retirement system, was we haven't taken, I hate to use it in case they watch it from Marblehead, Marblehead has extended it as far as they can. So if we have a catastrophe economically, they have no ability.

You know, the one thing we have is some cushion. So if Armageddon came and hit us, we have the ability to smooth it out with many years available to push it out. Whereas some Marblehead, and I'm not just saying Marblehead, there's many communities that have done that.

I just think it's really dangerous and not with any kind of foresight to say we will have no ability to help smooth out something like that.

[Speaker 9] (1:28:39 - 1:28:42)
Right, but there's a big difference between 2031 and extending it all the way out.

[Speaker 4] (1:28:43 - 1:30:13)
I mean, you could do 2032. Oh, no, that's not out of the question, absolutely. But I'm saying that, you know, the more, one of the things I found, because we extended it once long before you, way back, way, way back.

You know, the problem is you do, you know, every year you do extend it out. It's, you know, I don't want to have it become a habit is what I've always found. When we did it the last time, it was like almost a yearly request.

Why don't you kick it out another year? Why don't you kick it out another year? And not that we have to listen, but you started this not hearing town meeting saying, well, why are we trying to fund this so soon?

I mean, real illogical site, and I tried to explain that to them. So, I mean, it would be, you know, am I opposed to kicking it out one year? That will be a discussion on our board.

I don't think that's, you know, what we really want to see is what the actuarial says. If they say, you know, boy, this makes a lot of sense for you to go out a year, you know, that's kind of usually the lead we take. And they seem to be actuarials that will say, you know, you can kick it out a year, but here's the impact.

And it's also another year that you're not going to be, you're just putting out that big balloon at the end, that last year, say, it just pushes it out a year. Because one of the things about, and I don't know Swanscot's plan, but there are some other things that keeping us funded at that date would benefit, some other things that we may owe. OPEB.

What? OPEB. Yeah, OPEB.

So the shorter we can get this done, the better we'll be off of addressing the OPEB.

[Speaker 9] (1:30:13 - 1:30:36)
Sure. And I think. It all plays into our famous, infamous financial summit.

Because we don't really know the pressure that we're under here. We're still operating in the dark about that. And we're talking about sewer rates going up.

We're talking about the school right now. You know, one additional year there smooths things out. So, you know, you could say.

[Speaker 4] (1:30:36 - 1:30:41)
We'll come back once we get those numbers and ideas from our actuarial.

[Speaker 7] (1:30:41 - 1:31:16)
And I would say, Doug, you know, in my mind, I always sort of think that our line item in the budget is around 8% or 9% of the total, give or take. And that I personally, not speaking for the board, but I would like to keep that number in range so that you can be more predictable about your finances. So if we come back and do this analysis, and it says that we have to increase the ADC such that it's now 10% or 11% or 12% of the budget, you know, I think we'd be inclined to work with you all and say let's extend the funding schedule so that we're not as big a piece percent of the total budget.

We try to stay consistent on that.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:17 - 1:31:45)
So the reason why it wasn't extended the last time, it was two years ago when the town administrator asked to have it extended. And the select board was inclined to have it extended. But the finance committee and the retirement board did not want to extend it.

They felt that the return on the investment just wasn't worth it. And that as we move forward, like today, that there's a possibility we would have to extend it. So that was the thinking at the time.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:45 - 1:32:03)
It's always a discussion, and I think that's really the benefit for us to have the incredible conduit and the expertise of the finance committee, which is why we have a finance committee, because they always tend to shed a lot of light on this, that even kind of getting as a bridge to what we're looking to do.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:03 - 1:32:21)
And unfortunately, there's a lot of unknowns with what we're doing. We're dependent on market returns. And so if our returns are higher than our discount rate, things would be less impactful.

I think if they're lower than our discount rate, it could be hurtful.

[Speaker 4] (1:32:22 - 1:32:51)
I do remember someone used to work for you guys, guaranteeing something we were asking for. We're going to have the best. This market's going to soar, and there's nothing that's going to happen.

And he was, like, really adamant in a little bit of discussion we were having. And then COVID broke out two months later, three months later. You just don't know, right?

We learned from COVID. If that's one thing this country's learned, we just don't know. And I'm sure they learned it from the Depression, too.

I mean, it's just things you don't imagine can happen.

[Speaker 7] (1:32:51 - 1:33:02)
I mean, I would say that we're comfortable with where our discount rate is now. It's close to the national average, and we're really comfortable with our new investment consultants. They're just top-notch consultants.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:02 - 1:33:52)
I don't know if you guys know that we switched. It was a year ago. A tad frustrated with our – and we've learned since.

We had a good reason. He had no idea. Their company had no idea that we were even thinking about this.

But we were really getting a feel of disconnect. And some would be like, well, why is he advising this? And so we brought in what we consider some really, really expertise.

I mean, they're all experts, I guess. Mary Ellen, you've seen, I think, a difference in the presentations and what we're talking about and a little more clear and changing us a little, right, changing us. Because we always want to be near the top in our performance.

And our previous – it was time. And I was glad. I think we got ahead of it just – well, maybe not just in time, but just – Well, it wasn't an easy decision.

[Speaker 1] (1:33:52 - 1:33:57)
No. It took quite a while for the retirement board to make that decision.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:57 - 1:34:13)
But we really dug in and found what we think is a really quality advisor. It's like, are you paying Friday on me? Any other questions?

I'm walking away without even asking the chairperson. I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:15 - 1:34:18)
Any other questions? Danielle, are you sure you don't have a question? I don't, no.

Okay.

[Speaker 7] (1:34:19 - 1:34:23)
Expect to see us in February, maybe. Thank you, gentlemen.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:24 - 1:34:33)
Thank you for coming. Thanks. Love having you.

Well, we love having you. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:33 - 1:34:36)
I said enough. I'll make it first on the agenda.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:36 - 1:34:39)
Oh, okay. I can do that. Or last.

[Speaker 13] (1:34:40 - 1:34:43)
And last but not least. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:47 - 1:35:03)
And next on our agenda, we say the best for last, is our police and fire chiefs to give us an update on the departments, but specifically your hiring process.

[Speaker 6] (1:35:06 - 1:35:07)
Who would you like?

[Speaker 1] (1:35:07 - 1:35:07)
Hi, the chief.

[Speaker 21] (1:35:08 - 1:35:12)
Do the police chief, because your packets have his presentation.

[Speaker 1] (1:35:12 - 1:35:16)
Okay. Very good. Thank you.

Sorry.

[Speaker 3] (1:35:16 - 1:51:12)
Good evening. Happy New Year to the select board and everybody in Swampscot land. So I know David had asked about our hiring, our latest round of hiring, which was actually late October, October, September 23.

So I put together just the facts, ma'am, dragging that down and dirty presentation. So our current state of affairs, just for information, we currently have three vacancies. That's the next slide.

We currently have three vacancies and two positions that are in acting positions. Our recent, most recent vacancy, Officer Juan Pena had just left last month to work for the Winthrop Police Department, his hometown. So that created that third vacancy.

I also, in that past slide, Diane, in that past slide, I put together potential retirements. Those are not exact dates for the retirements. We're looking at for Lieutenant Waters will have his 32 years of service this year, as well as Lieutenant Locke, his total 32 years of service.

Lieutenant Hennessy will probably have about, I know he has additional time that he had from previous departments, so he'll probably have close to 30. And Captain Cable will, in 2026, he'll have approximately 26, 26 and a half years of service. So, again, any one of our, they're all lieutenants, any one of our leadership can retire in 2025 or 2026.

And currently the Officer Cassidy, I know this was in the last select board, Officer Cassidy is currently on military leave, which is creating a little bit of a strain on our department in terms of staffing with these three vacancies. And Lieutenant Hennessy is going to have a medical procedure, so he'll be out for a while in the coming months. Next slide, Diane.

So we've put together just a quick just synopsis of those who have left us, who have either retired, resigned in 2019. I failed to mention Officer Justin Nestor, who left in August 29, 2023. And since my hire, since 2022, we have hired seven officers.

Next slide. So, David, talking about the timeline of 2023, back in September of 2023, we initiated the hiring process. At the time we had approximately 137 candidates on the list.

Thanks to the select board back in October of that same year, 2023, you approved the bonus, which immensely helped our hiring process. The $2,500 for bonus for new officers and $10,000 bonus for lateral officers. I can tell you in the state that was unheard of, and I had only heard of a couple, maybe two or three other departments who had hiring bonuses.

So we were, I would say, we were at the forefront of being leaders in that aspect. So back in, we started the process in September of 23. In September of 23, we tested.

We conduct, after their written test, the candidates are vetted. Those were the 137 candidates. They are contacted to complete our physical fitness test.

I failed to mention Officer Kevin Rain is here. He is part of our, he's an integral member of our hiring team, in charge of the physical tests and other portions of the testing. So if you have any questions, please interrupt, or we can answer those questions afterwards.

So we had 28, we had probably about 40 individuals test in two different sessions for the physical fitness test. 28 passed, and 24 moved on for an oral board assessment. I'll explain the oral board assessment, but it essentially is a interview with two of our community members and three officers of different ranks.

In December, just two months later, two and a half months later, we had nine finalist interviews with myself and the town administrator. Four officers were selected, which was Officer Harold, Officer McGee, Officer, a lateral officer, Nick Cruz, and lateral officer, Joanne Pena. And so they started, Pena and Cruz started immediately, and about a month later, the four officers, including Officer Noble, started the police academy.

Next slide. So I've put together a flow chart of our testing process. I won't go over all the nuances of the testing process.

If you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer those. Next slide. So one of the things in hiring is our outreach.

What is the outreach? Who are we marketing to? Who are the people that we are contacting?

And so just to give a broad understanding, our outreach includes posts, not only internally on our Swanscott and MMA website, but also on LinkedIn, Handshake. We've attended various job fairs, colleges, and universities, typically with the criminal justice programs, as well as with the vendor that we utilize, has a session with the MPTC academies for looking for any person in the academy, any candidate in the academy who is self-sponsored, meaning they haven't selected a police department. They're just trying to get the training to get on board with a police department.

Also, MOLI, Massachusetts Association of Women in Law Enforcement, the Latino Police Officer Association, which I'm the vice president of, our national organization of black law enforcement are contacted. And internally, the police exam services, that's who we contract to conduct our written testing procedure and vetting the candidates. They have an internal website, it's called Get Badged, that has a member database of over 7,200 people.

Right now, and just to give you a current, since we have vacancies, right now there are approximately 300 candidates on that list. Mind you, not every candidate wants to, you know, some will say, I just want to get hired, I live on the South Shore, I don't mind coming to Swampscot. Others just have some preferred departments who they want to work for.

But currently there's 300 level, sorry, entry-level candidates on waiting, 36% of which are ethnic minorities, 18% females, and 72% of them have a high school education or above. Next slide. Just some of the frequently asked questions.

Minimum qualifications, 21 years of age, have a driver's license, ability to obtain a license to carry a firearm, no felony convictions, and at least a high school diploma. The testing company that we contract with, their written tests vet the candidates. And one of the most important things is that the testing is validated to monitor and ensure that there's no adverse impacts to the candidate's question, regardless of what background, ethnicity, where they're from.

And I know there were some issues these past couple years with civil service and some civil service tests. The PT tests are PT tests that we conduct, mirror what the candidates will see if they're selected to go to the police academy. Like I said, the oral board assessment consists of five individuals, three from the police department, two from our community.

And the background process is very comprehensive. There's a comprehensive criminal check, employment checks, neighbor checks. If they're already an officer, we contact their prior police department or former police department, and we check the national decertification index.

That's part of the police reform to ensure that there's not an officer who's actually been decertified and is trying to just hopscotch to another police department. Next slide. I included some of the hiring costs for hiring a new officer.

As you can see, it's not cheap. It's very costly for one candidate, approximately $8,300 per candidate. And the bottom chart is what we expect to pay them in their first year.

I mean, when we send somebody to the police academy, we have to pay for the ammunition, their uniforms that they're going to wear, and that becomes costly. We've also included their mandatory training for the year for all officers, which is 64 hours of training a year, which comes down to $44.80 a year, in total about $7,166 per year. And the last slide, I've kind of put together all I know is non-civil service.

I grew up in a police agency that did not have civil service. I can't tell you the benefits. I can tell you what the cons, what I believe the cons are to civil service.

For us, if we were still in civil service, there is no way we would have hired these four individuals like that in two months. Absolutely not. One of the problems with being in civil service is you are on the civil service timeline, and just in speaking to my fellow colleagues, other chiefs, just to have a – the candidates are waiting two to three months to even be notified just that they passed a written test.

So I know Officer Rain can probably talk a little bit more on that. One of the other things that is a benefit of not being in civil service is our ability to outreach. So we can start – anybody can apply, anybody here in the state.

So I know I can tell you with – specifically with Officer Harrell and Officer McGee, who were just selected, they had not even thought about Swampscot. And we were there at the testing process during the written exam, and it was actually Lieutenant Fraylor who was there and chatted them up and said, hey, have you thought about coming to Swampscot? Now, Officer McGee is actually from Burlington, and Officer Harrell was from Franklin.

So very different parts of the state. And they became interested just because of that personal connection that they were able to make with us. So that is a huge benefit for us being out of civil service.

Again, some of the pitfalls right now with civil service, there are so many rules. There's so many things that are being – that are currently being addressed with civil service. Right now there's the hybrid reformation of you can select 50 percent of your candidates externally, and 50 percent have to be from the civil service list.

For now how – right now lots of questions are being asked, how does civil service enforce that? And there's different stipulations where civil service will say, well, yes, you can hire externally, but you have to have tested with civil service in the past year. So there's weird nuances that have not been addressed yet through civil service.

And, again, I can tell you, my fellow colleague in Danvers, when you're in civil service, and maybe Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, you can choose two or three departments – excuse me – who you would like to go to, who you would like to work for. And if you're – if Swampscot is not – thank you – if Swampscot is not on the list, we're out of luck. So what happens is, okay, I am in civil service, and I only have so many people on the list.

Well, if I don't have – I may not even have enough applicants. I might have four vacancies, and only three people want to come to Swampscot. So that is – that's one of the pitfalls of civil service.

What we're also seeing – civil service, you do have the ability of holding, keeping an officer. So the chief has to buy off on, hey, if I'm in a civil service department, say, for instance, Lynn, and I want to go to another civil service department, well, everybody's being affected by staffing. So you have – as a chief of police, you're not going to allow – you're not going to necessarily say, oh, sure, you can leave us, you know, go on to Carina Pastures, because now you have nobody on the civil service list to take that spot.

So what's happening now is officers who are in civil service are just resigning from that department. Fine, you don't want to let me go? I resign.

And then they start the new process with the new civil service agency, who will waive that. And so there's a lot of pitfalls. All I see are benefits to not being in civil service.

They're – so, again, I'm biased, but because I know that our process has worked. And I'm here – we're here to address any questions if you have any questions on hiring.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:14 - 1:51:16)
Are there any more slides, or are we on questions?

[Speaker 3] (1:51:16 - 1:51:18)
That's it. Just the facts.

[Speaker 1] (1:51:19 - 1:51:20)
Does anybody have any questions?

[Speaker 22] (1:51:23 - 1:51:23)
David.

[Speaker 6] (1:51:24 - 1:51:33)
Chief, just about the three current vacancies that are in the department, what's the process, and what are your thoughts about getting those positions filled?

[Speaker 3] (1:51:34 - 1:52:42)
I would like to get – I would like to get started. We have already got started on vetting. We've had an open process.

So if you look at our website, it is open. And we have received – maybe you can discuss this a little bit more, Kevin. I know of at least two or three applicants who have come in, lateral officers, who are either in the academy or want to move over to our department who are interested.

So we're in that process. We have to obtain approval from the town administrator to start the new process. Again, it's $3,500.

It's – we have used police exam services for – this will be the third year in a row. We've had some great benefits using PES. So I would like to start the process, especially knowing that we have three current vacancies.

We have a fourth who is on military leave and a fifth who will be out for a number of months. So I think it's incumbent upon us to at least start the process.

[Speaker 6] (1:52:45 - 1:52:51)
And that would be a combination of new officers or laterals or to be determined? To be determined.

[Speaker 13] (1:52:52 - 1:54:59)
It really could be. It depends on the candidates that are applying to our department. One of the things that we're focused on is what's predictable is preventable.

So we're able to predict what's going to be happening. We'd like to prevent an onslaught of what we already went through. Since we've left civil service, we've had a variety of candidates continuously come to apply for our department.

And now many of the people in this industry wanting to become police officers have the knowledge that we're no longer civil service. So their inquiries have been consistent. Knowing that we have the ability or would like to add officers to our force, we've continued to build a Rolodex of what's been coming in.

Just to reiterate what the chief has been expressing here is to be able to take advantage of the systems that we've used in the past few years, to continue the momentum that we had developing the candidates that we brought in. We've only gotten better at what we've done and have done in the past. So moving forward, obtaining candidates to bring them in in our lens is going to be efficient, effective, and smooth.

So we get a variety of candidates. Some of them are trained. They could be ready to start the street just like our previous laterals have.

Some of them may not. And those candidates get vetted through our process. Some candidates get turned away for whatever reason.

We don't have the final say. We don't understand why, but we just present who we feel is eligible to be recognized to be brought in. We've expressed it before.

The academy takes a long time. It's six months. Then we have a 12-week FTO period once the candidate graduates from the academy and becomes an officer.

So it's an extensive training period. The faster we can get through that, the more beneficial it's going to be for the town and for the impact on the numbers that you just saw.

[Speaker 3] (1:55:01 - 1:55:29)
And going back to your question, if I can predict who's going to stay, who's going to be a great police officer, I mean, I would probably own my own company and hiring company. So, you know, we've only had one officer since I've been here in 22 that's left, one of the new hires. So we have a very good success rate with our hiring process.

Thank you, Chief. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:55:30 - 1:56:19)
So, Chief, one of the issues from past select boards has always been how efficient the police department is at reaching out and making sure you're casting a wide net. And it's no secret that there's been a lot of praise that the fire department really does an amazing job on casting a wide net. So I just I hope that as you go forward that there is a good amount of equity there as far as how you're bringing in new candidates and how you're recruiting and doing things like that.

Another question I have is if we're sitting here today and you have a number of vacancies, you had a number of vacancies back in May and June. And I'm guessing is the reason why you weren't filling at that time because you had multiple people already in the academy?

[Speaker 3] (1:56:19 - 1:57:21)
We had two vacancies. We only had this third vacancy as of December. So we had the two vacancies.

Half part of that time was allowing those three officers, Harold McGee and Noble, to finish their field training program. So they had to finish that extensive field training program. Now having three officers in training is going to tap, so to speak, tap out our current officers who are field training officers because there has to be certified trained field training officers.

They don't just get to ride with, oh, well, tonight you're riding with so and so. There is a very comprehensive field training officer program that we utilize. It's called the San Jose model.

And there are certain metrics that need to be met. So if we have more than three officers in field training, I barely have enough field training officers to train those three new officers in training.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:21 - 1:57:31)
Okay, great. And my last question is on the bonus structure that was in place, the laterals received $10,000. Was that $10,000 after they completed three years?

[Speaker 3] (1:57:32 - 1:57:41)
Correct. I believe it's after one year, $2,500. And then after year three, it's $7,500.

[Speaker 1] (1:57:41 - 1:57:54)
Okay. And is this something you're going to be coming back to the board to ask for so that you could possibly get laterals or people that are coming right out of the academy? Is this something you're going to be coming to the board?

[Speaker 3] (1:57:54 - 1:59:24)
I think it would be beneficial to have a bonus structure. Now, I would leave that up to the board in terms of how much we believe that that is appropriate. But $10,000 was very, very significant here in the state.

So that was almost unheard of. I think maybe we can go less. I'm not saying go cheaper because that's not the route.

But being fiscally judicious in what are we looking at? And, again, that's back to David's question. Yes, laterals can hit the street.

They can go through field training, 12 weeks of field training, and they're already out on the street. There are some cost savings to that. But there's a risk, just like our one officer went to his hometown.

He was here for a year. He was fabulous. But he went home.

And that goes back to, you know, if I had my crystal ball, are they going to stay here? Are they going to do they want to be part of, you know, of our community? And so it's hard to judge.

And I think it really just goes through the hiring process of does this person have the heart to even to want to be a police officer? And do they have the heart to want to be a police officer and serve in Swampscott? That's the million-dollar question.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:27 - 1:59:43)
So is there a provision now for that $10,000 incentive where or is there a thought to giving or creating a provision that says, you know, in lieu of, you know, for this $10,000 or $5,000, whatever it might be, you will give us X years of service, three years, five years, whatever.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:44 - 1:59:57)
Not in that you will give us, but if you do not meet these requirements, you don't get. So the officer, the lateral officer who left to go back home, he didn't receive any. He forfeited the entire bonus.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:58 - 1:59:58)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:59 - 2:00:02)
So you don't stay. You don't get it.

[Speaker 10] (2:00:02 - 2:00:06)
Right, right. But he would after the first year, he would have got a portion of it, right?

[Speaker 3] (2:00:06 - 2:00:06)
Correct.

[Speaker 10] (2:00:06 - 2:00:16)
Right. So instead of that, right, where you give them a year, you give them the first year, you get X. So my thought is, you know, if you stay for three, you'll get.

Do you know what I'm saying?

[Speaker 7] (2:00:16 - 2:00:16)
Yes.

[Speaker 10] (2:00:18 - 2:00:21)
Maybe just to kind of give them a little more time.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:21 - 2:00:32)
That is reminiscent of a civil service program. And, you know, you can't. I think legally it would be impossible to hold someone to that.

[Speaker 21] (2:00:32 - 2:00:33)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:33 - 2:00:41)
If they just resign. Like, okay, you can say you can keep me here, but if I'm going to leave, I'm going to leave. If an officer wants to leave, they're going to leave.

[Speaker 10] (2:00:41 - 2:00:41)
Right.

[Speaker 3] (2:00:41 - 2:00:46)
So I think it's hard to actually have some teeth in that.

[Speaker 1] (2:00:48 - 2:00:55)
Okay. Okay, any other questions? No.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Chief.

Thank you.

[Speaker 8] (2:00:59 - 2:09:08)
Good evening, board. Thanks for inviting us here to discuss, to talk and go over our hiring policies. We really appreciate it.

It's probably my favorite topic. It's about my favorite part of my job is the hiring. You know, it's a life-changing job.

It's a calling, and it's a tremendously rewarding job. And the process of selecting people and really getting to know them and offering, you know, this real great, great opportunity to some new person, usually a younger person, is absolutely the best part of what I do. So we left the civil service after the town put a lot of thought into it.

We had a civil service study committee of citizens with myself and the then police chief as non-voting members of that board. And we kicked around a lot of we looked at it from a lot of different angles. We looked at what worked well for us under civil service, and we looked at what we wanted to change.

You know, and the main driving factor was, as what you said, Mary Ellen, was casting that wider net. You know, no matter how many different ways we looked at it, we couldn't get around the fact that under civil service we were not going to be able to cast that wider net. After a few years now of doing our own thing, it's been a learning process.

As Kevin Reen said, the more as we do it, we get better at it. We're learning to work out some of the bugs. But it's absolutely I don't think anyone in my department would really seriously argue that it was better the way we had done it before.

A lot of our experience has been the same or very similar to the police department's experience. A lot of the frustrations with civil service is similar to the frustrations with them. And a lot of the successes we've had have been civil have been similar outside of civil service.

There are different resources that the police departments that police departments have. So their their testing regime is different. Ours is more local individuals for us.

We so we contract with a testing company. You know, we we work with the school department to to use space in the in the high school. And so a lot of it, a lot more falls on us.

So a lot more is an in-house sort of a construct and how we're putting it together. But, you know, we've had three three entrance exams thus far. And, you know, we're getting it's it's becoming more and more smooth each time we've done it.

So in the time that we've left civil service, we have hired 10 firefighters outside of civil service. And we have two conditional offers and candidates that are going through background and vetting, screening and vetting right now. With the pair accepting the retirement of Lieutenant Spookus and these and the retirement of Deputy Chief Potts last year also.

These two people will actually. So with the Spookus gone, this is the first time in my tenure as chief that we will not have anyone on any type of a long term sick or injury leave. So I'm really excited about that.

And when we plug in, when these two new firefighters come on, we will be fully staffed. So right now we have those two vacancies and two people in queue to fill those. So that'll bring the number of hirings we've done outside of civil service to 12.

Two of those people did leave. But still, even with that, it's it'll be over a third of our department that we will have hired in the post civil service process. The process is just better under civil service.

If we had a vacancy, we send a requisition civil service and they essentially they send they'll send us two names and they say you can interview if you want to. And pick one to pick one of them. We interview a lot more than two people for every person that we offer a job to now.

And we get to do a real interview. I've I think there are there might be four or five people that work this once the fire department that I that I wasn't an officer and that I didn't interview before they got hired. There are maybe the top five people might have gotten there before I was interviewing them.

So I watched the process under civil service. And frankly, you know, the candidate would come in and they would know where their position is on the civil service list. And we know it.

And we would go through our questions. But it really almost was performative. They knew they were getting the job.

We knew we knew we didn't have any recourse but to give them the job. And that was it. And it's it's a lot different now.

It's it's now it resembles an interview process that anyone else that is more familiar to anyone who's interviewed for almost any type of an organization. You've got to put your best foot forward. We're going to really be looking under the hood.

We're going to try to get to know the person. And if you know if it doesn't work it's if it's not going to be a good fit. It's not going to be a good fit.

When I say we our policy is a has myself a human resources director and a member of the union form our interview committee. And in each of the each of the each of the rounds of hiring that we've done I've allowed the union to have an addition the union to have an additional member present because I value their input as well. So we've gone we've you know right from the start we've hired London Spain Dennis Berry Brittany Carpenter Gino DiGiorgio Ariana Saro Santiago Garcia Jonathan Tibbo Bethany Dudley Kyrie Todd and Joshua Mara.

And we have opposite to Zoe Landry and Michael DeFiori. I could I could go on and on about every single one of them. They've been it's been it's been just great.

This you know and the process has worked. It's been it has accomplished what we the town set out to do. And what we kind of found out is like success success just breeds success.

So when it comes to that the success that we've had in casting that wide net I think part of what's made us successful is part of what has made us successful is the same thing that was a hindrance under civil service. People didn't see themselves reflected in the workforce that they were we were asking them to apply to. And now the opposite can be said to be true.

People do see that people do see and believe we can we can we can have a little disclaimer at the bottom of our application. All you want to earn equal opportunity blah blah blah. If they didn't see it they didn't it's not real to them and they didn't necessarily internalize that and believe it.

Now people can see who who rolls out on our trucks. They see who comes to their homes and gives them service and they see who we are and and it's been made real to them. And in people that we've interviewed have told us that people have told us they took our test because they saw the people that that work for our for our department and they're encouraged to do to do it.

You know we have open houses when we're in the lead up to our entrance exam we'll have an open house and that's been really great. The people come in and they are shown around by our firefighters and they get a real sense of who we are and they get a comfort with us and it starts to demystify our whole process and they they begin to have a comfort level before they even take the exam. So you know as I said it's still a learning process and we're getting better and smoother at it.

But the efficiency of doing it as we're doing it right now is just head and shoulders above the way it was in the civil service and I'm really happy that we've made the change.

[Speaker 1] (2:09:10 - 2:09:17)
Great. Any questions? I guess we do.

[Speaker 6] (2:09:18 - 2:10:59)
You have anything? Do you have a question? I have a comment.

Chief I just want to I want to thank I want to thank you for your leadership. Certainly Chief Casada for his for his leadership as well. But you know Chief Archer you were you were here from you know during this you know during this process I was I was on the board.

You know the Civil Service Study Committee in 2020 was certainly something that you know town meeting established and you know we we really we really had to put all of our heads together and work in a collaborative manner and it wasn't certainly wasn't perfect. It wasn't. But you know I certainly want to thank you and and the members of the union and the Swampscott Fire Department and the Swampscott Police Department for continuing to move forward and continuing to work together on this.

And you know it is a little smoother every time we we move it we move we move forward. And just you know I thank you both chiefs and Officer Reen for coming together and explaining this and and just giving us an update on the on the process and I would certainly be remiss if I if I did not mention our former town administrator Sean Fitzgerald for for his efforts in in helping the town of Swampscott leave leave civil service. This was certainly it certainly is is was a Herculean effort and I appreciate the update from from you Chief Archer and Chief Cassata.

So thanks again.

[Speaker 11] (2:11:01 - 2:11:02)
Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (2:11:02 - 2:11:03)
Thank you.

[Speaker 11] (2:11:04 - 2:12:02)
Oh I'm sorry. That's OK. It's not about the hiring process.

I think I say this probably every time you folks come in and it's just wonderful to see outside of the hiring process the community work that you all have been doing a special thanks to Officer Reen. I know that my son sees him all the time at school and is always very excited to chat with you about flag football and and the comfort that kids get to have with law enforcement and fire and EMT and then the sort of like anxiety and think that gets stripped away because they know you you're just a community member. They can approach you.

They can talk to you. They can. It's so important.

It's pivotal to you know growing future firefighters and future police officers but also just future community members who believe in what you're doing and support this town. So I really thank you.

[Speaker 20] (2:12:02 - 2:12:03)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:05 - 2:12:06)
Thank you.

[Speaker 13] (2:12:06 - 2:12:07)
You're welcome. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:12:09 - 2:13:45)
OK. So next on our agenda is town administrator update discussion vote on interim town administrator. Presta her our charter when a town administrator chooses to go out on leave town administrator appoints a acting slash interim town town administrator which was done.

That was the case. So when Mr. Fitzgerald had taken taken a leave he did with the support of the select board appoint Gino Cresta as the interim. Now that Mr. Fitzgerald has resigned I'd like to have a motion from the board to appoint Mr. Cresta as our interim town administrator. I'd also like to point out that the reason why this is coming up tonight is because Mr. Fitzgerald's resignation was not in place until 12 19. Our last meeting was 12 18. So this is our first select board meeting.

And that's why this is coming up today and not previously. So can I have a motion motion. I have a second second discussion.

Can I have a vote. All in favor. I motion approves the next.

[Speaker 9] (2:13:45 - 2:13:48)
I want to make a speech. I'll say thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:49 - 2:13:49)
The.

[Speaker 10] (2:13:51 - 2:13:52)
We say thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:13:53 - 2:13:56)
Yeah. We really appreciate what you're doing Gino.

[Speaker 11] (2:13:59 - 2:14:28)
I do think we should just mention that Gino has not taken off his fully taken off the DPW hat that he is actually filling two positions currently. He does have a little bit more support with the new hire of the assistant engineer but that he is facilitating two jobs right now or one and a half however you want to say it. So I just want to acknowledge that.

And so if we could.

[Speaker 1] (2:14:28 - 2:16:40)
I agree with you on that. And also I would also want to make sure we also recognize all the town staff and DPW because everybody even everybody across the board is jumping in and pitching in to help out to make everything smooth and make it work. So it's much appreciated.

The next thing that we do have to start to talk about is the hiring process and per the charter. We do need to discuss the entire process. And I did take over the weekend.

I was able to reach a number of people that were on the last hiring committee. I spoke with Naomi Dreeben. I spoke with Margie Golaska and I spoke with Erin DeRoche-Peralt.

Erin is actually a she specializes in HR and she was very helpful about talking about the process going forward and how we really should be looking at it. We are we are in a position as a select board to nominate somebody who will be our representative or which means it could be one of us or we could select somebody somebody else. We're not going to vote on it tonight.

We'll vote on it next week. But it's something to do something to discuss. I did have I did have the thought that I think that having Erin DeRoche-Peralt as our person might make sense because she had so much experience with it.

She is HR and I just I just want to throw it out there and possibly maybe other people have some recommendations or maybe you feel it. No, we have to have a member of the select board. So those that's just a thought process.

I want to throw out there and then we'll have even more information sent out in the next week as to how to go along and really to put the timing together on how we want to do this. It does take it does take a little while.

[Speaker 6] (2:16:40 - 2:16:45)
Was was Miss Peralt was the was the select board appointee?

[Speaker 1] (2:16:46 - 2:16:46)
No.

[Speaker 6] (2:16:46 - 2:16:48)
For this for this committee previously?

[Speaker 1] (2:16:48 - 2:17:09)
No, I think she was from the moderator from Mike McClung because the select board was Naomi Driven. So select board was Naomi Driven. Suzanne Wright was school committee.

Margie Golaska was the finance committee. There was a gentleman on the committee. I don't I don't remember his name.

I think that was it.

[Speaker 22] (2:17:13 - 2:17:13)
Okay.

[Speaker 10] (2:17:14 - 2:17:24)
Do we know who the school committee and finance committee members are? I believe the moderator alluded to the fact that he does know that do we know who those members are is that been?

[Speaker 1] (2:17:24 - 2:18:14)
No, we do. We do not know at this time. So what happens is for the charter the finance committee and the school committee and then we will put our name forward and then he will add to after that.

So he has the the position of being able to add the two last ones that he can he can make the decision as to whether or not to balance it out or right. Whatever you want to call it there. We're in a process of doing this right.

We don't have to we're not we don't have a we don't have to drop everything and rush through it. We just have to do it right and put some thought into it. So we've had a lot going on.

We've had the holidays and we are where we are. This is our first meeting since the town administrators resignation.

[Speaker 10] (2:18:15 - 2:18:59)
You know, is it is it historically? I don't know the answer to this, but is it is there an option to have some some type of community involvement here where we hear from actual residents who were here to represent and what their feelings or what their thought? I know our chart where you know, we have to follow what our Charter says, but you know, what point or to what extent do we engage members of this community with what maybe it's a simple survey of what they'd like to see in the next town administrator or what they feel are important issues that the town administrator, you know, maybe Excel at or you know, it hasn't delivered in the past, whatever it might be.

And to what extent do we begin that conversation?

[Speaker 1] (2:18:59 - 2:19:19)
So perhaps we should add that on to week. What we could do is we could add that onto one of our agendas, call for the public to come in and just give their opinion on what what we should be looking for, because then what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to give our opinion of what we're looking for.

[Speaker 10] (2:19:19 - 2:19:51)
Because I certainly, you know, want to respect our Charter and our process, but I do not want this to turn into a political battle of wills where we completely forget the 15,000 people that live here and what they've seen historically in the years that they've been here, what they might have appreciated or not appreciated. And, you know, what their feelings are in moving forward. And I think we lose sight of that a lot of times.

And so to the extent that we can explore that, I think we should.

[Speaker 11] (2:19:51 - 2:20:08)
Yeah, I agree with you. I can put that on the agenda. I wonder if, not discouraging having it on an agenda, but I wonder if...

Would it have a separate meaning? No, a survey has a little more anonymity to it.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:08 - 2:20:08)
Right.

[Speaker 11] (2:20:08 - 2:20:28)
People might feel more comfortable giving more robust input. If it's not, they don't have to get up and say it in front of a recorded open meeting. Not everybody signs up like we do to have their voices heard in that way.

So we might get more feedback and more honest feedback if we do a survey or something like that.

[Speaker 1] (2:20:28 - 2:20:41)
So do you want us to ask HR to put out a survey? Do you want the interim town administrator to put out a survey? Or do we want to do both?

We might as well do both.

[Speaker 10] (2:20:41 - 2:21:00)
Yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense for HR to begin, you know, kind of thinking about it and vetting what type of questions they might put on a survey. You know, of course, we could certainly give our input as well. You know, and I think it's just important for us to be open to, you know, anything that residents have to say and want to say.

[Speaker 11] (2:21:01 - 2:21:03)
I think it's a great idea.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:03 - 2:21:23)
Community outreach for the last search? Anybody recall? Well, what happens is when the candidates are interviewing, there's a public comment and the public is involved.

Just like the school? No, not like the school. Oh, the school.

[Speaker 9] (2:21:24 - 2:21:26)
Superintendent process that just happened.

[Speaker 11] (2:21:27 - 2:21:28)
Yeah, I mean, less feedback.

[Speaker 10] (2:21:28 - 2:21:29)
Yeah, that doesn't exactly go that way all the time.

[Speaker 11] (2:21:29 - 2:21:32)
I mean, less feedback about the candidates and more about.

[Speaker 9] (2:21:32 - 2:21:37)
No, but I mean the fact that, I'm sorry, just to clarify, he was interviewed publicly.

[Speaker 10] (2:21:38 - 2:21:51)
Right, I think we're talking about something entirely separate from the interview process, right? I'm not talking about once we get to the nut and bolts of interviewing candidates. I'm thinking more of what people want to see in potential candidates.

[Speaker 11] (2:21:52 - 2:21:56)
Yeah, what characteristics you're looking for in candidates and why that's important to you as a community.

[Speaker 10] (2:21:56 - 2:21:56)
Right.

[Speaker 11] (2:21:57 - 2:22:01)
So that before we even get to here's three people, which one do you like the best?

[Speaker 21] (2:22:01 - 2:22:01)
Right.

[Speaker 11] (2:22:01 - 2:22:14)
We actually said, well, we heard you and the reason we chose three people was, you know, because they portrayed X, Y, and Z characteristics which you felt were important to community members.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:18 - 2:22:29)
Okay, so Gino, you want to take that back and start working on a survey right away? We'll review it and talk about it.

[Speaker 10] (2:22:30 - 2:22:34)
Or at least, you know, talk to human resources or whoever.

[Speaker 1] (2:22:34 - 2:22:39)
Those two weeks come pretty quick. Oh, I know, I just mean don't send it up. Oh, yeah, don't send it up.

[Speaker 6] (2:22:39 - 2:23:00)
And then for our nominee, you know, you had the recommendation for Ms. Peralt. Is there anybody else? I mean, I'm going to go think as well, but might we be able to get some information as to who it is so we can- Oh, yeah, I would like to.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:00 - 2:23:10)
I just wanted to, you know, that was just my idea is to use somebody, you know, outside. The board might have said, nope, we don't want to do that. I'd like to hear from other people, too.

[Speaker 11] (2:23:11 - 2:23:26)
Right, exactly, David. I think that's an important part, which is that we sort of get to play multiple roles in this process. So if we could be able to share that, I think that would be a benefit to the process.

[Speaker 9] (2:23:27 - 2:23:36)
And ideally, we'll know who the school committee and finance committee have nominated so we don't nominate the same person. Exactly.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:37 - 2:23:45)
Yeah. Okay, so we have that. Now we move to the approval of the consent agenda.

[Speaker 10] (2:23:46 - 2:23:58)
And before we- Did we skip one? Did we skip one? Did I miss that?

Were we not doing that? Ralph Cameron? Oh, my God.

I mean, I didn't know if we- I don't think he showed up.

[Speaker 21] (2:23:58 - 2:23:58)
He didn't.

[Speaker 1] (2:23:58 - 2:24:08)
He didn't, okay. Okay, but we would like to acknowledge our new part-time electrical inspector, Ralph Cameron. Would you like to say something about Mr. Cameron?

[Speaker 5] (2:24:09 - 2:24:15)
I've known Ralph for many years, the old Lynn softball days. And I think he's a great guy and he's going to be a great addition.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:16 - 2:24:17)
Does he live in Swampscott?

[Speaker 5] (2:24:17 - 2:24:17)
He lives in Lynn.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:18 - 2:24:21)
That's okay. We have Marblehead with DPW.

[Speaker 5] (2:24:21 - 2:24:27)
He used to live right next- well, close to Dave and I, right next to the CVS. And I used to have, but he's since moved.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:29 - 2:24:36)
Great. So if he's part-time, so when does he- when is he around? As needed?

[Speaker 5] (2:24:36 - 2:24:45)
Yeah. I think he has to be in the office two days a week. I'm just not sure what those two days are.

Another part-time inspector's in two. He's in two. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:45 - 2:25:03)
Go ahead. Okay. Well, thank you, Ralph Cameron.

And if we see you, we see you. Okay, so now going to the consent agenda. Did we say we were going to pull out the 4th, December 4th?

Or was it December 18th? 18th. Okay.

[Speaker 10] (2:25:07 - 2:25:15)
We're not going to- I don't think we have to if we're going to- You know what?

[Speaker 1] (2:25:16 - 2:25:39)
I just want to make sure we're really clear on the 18th. I just want to pull the 18th out because I'm going to read that separate. So is everyone else okay with the meeting minutes other than the- I'm just leaving the 18th out to read the dates separate.

Read the names of the restaurants separate.

[Speaker 11] (2:25:39 - 2:25:44)
So I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda except for the minutes of 12-18-24.

[Speaker 22] (2:25:45 - 2:25:45)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:46 - 2:29:30)
Okay. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carries. So on the 18th, I would just like to point out that- I just want to make sure we go on record. I would just want to reread the motion.

Upon a motion duly made by Dave Grisham and seconded by Katie Fallon, it was unanimously voted to approve the common vicars set forth in the presentation. Andrea's Taqueria, 646 Humphrey Street. Oostbury, 160 Humphrey Street.

Cafe Avellino, 242 Humphrey Street. Captain Pizza, 3 Railroad Avenue. Jay Asian Restaurant, 435 Paradise Road.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, 450 Humphrey Street. Cindy's Superette, 653 Humphrey Street. Cookie Monster, 505 Paradise.

Dockside, 286 Humphrey Street. Domino's Pizza, 430 Paradise Road. Dunkin' Donuts, 980 Paradise Road.

Five Guys, 980 Paradise Road. Flip the Bird, 450 Paradise Road. G Bar and Restaurant, 256 Humphrey Street.

Gourmet Garden, 430 Paradise Road. Hawthorne by the Sea, 153 Humphrey Street. Jersey Mike's, 425 Paradise Road.

Lincoln Landing, 156 Humphrey Street. Little G, 250 Humphrey Street. Mexicali Cantina Grill, 443 Paradise Road.

North Haven, 408 Humphrey Street. Panera Bread, 433 Paradise Road. Paradiso Restaurante, 15 Railroad Avenue.

Canoma Cafe, 128 Humphrey Street. Popo's, Hot Dogs and Kills. Cream, 168 Humphrey Street.

Dobay Mexican Eats, 1016 Paradise Road. Renzo's Pizza, 197 Essex. Starbucks, 450 Paradise Road.

Clarific by the Sea, 146 Humphrey Street. Tony Lina's Sandwich Shop, 88 Cherry Street. Tropicana Smoothie Cafe, 450 Paradise Road.

Volvo Pizza, 152 Humphrey Street. Okay, we don't have to do... And I don't know...

Oil Frozen Yogurt, 136 Humphrey Street. That was for the... Where is the liquor?

That's for Common Vicks. And then for the liquor license, we have Cafe Avellino, 242 Humphrey Street. Kai Restaurant, 435 Paradise Road.

Dockside, 286 Humphrey Street. Gourmet Garden, 430 Paradise Road. Hawthorne by the Sea, 153 Humphrey Street.

Mexicali Cantina, 443 Paradise Road. Mission on the Bay, 141 Humphrey Street. North Haven, 408 Humphrey Street.

Paradiso, 15 Railroad Ave. Tyrific, 146 Humphrey Street. Ponoma 3, 128 Humphrey Street. VFW Post, 1240, 10 New Ocean Street.

St. John's, 430 Paradise Road. Swampscot Club, 362 Humphrey Street. Swampscot Yacht Club, 443 Paradise Road.

Borough Street Liquor, 205 Borough Street. Vinton Square Liquors, 375 Paradise Road. Ayers Express, 408 Humphrey Street.

Richdale, 444 Humphrey Street. These are the liquor licenses that we had approved on the 18th. I just wanted to read those out so that people heard what their addresses were.

[Speaker 19] (2:29:30 - 2:29:32)
Do you have to do an entertainment license as well?

[Speaker 1] (2:29:33 - 2:30:19)
I'll do an entertainment license as well. Entertainment license was Cafe Avellino, 242 Humphrey Street. Chai Asian Cuisine, 435 Paradise.

Dockside Pub, 286 Humphrey Street. G Restaurant, Little G, 256 Humphrey Street. Gourmet Garden, 430 Paradise Road.

Mexicali Cantina and Grill, 443 Paradise Road. Mission on the Bay, 141 Humphrey Street. North Haven, 408 Humphrey Street.

Paradiso Restaurant, 15 Railroad Avenue. St. John the Baptist Club, 40 Burpee Terrace. Swanscott Club, 362 Humphrey Street.

Swanscott Yacht Club, 425 Humphrey Street. VFW Post, 120 48 Pine Street. It should be 1240.

It should be. VFW Post, 1240.

[Speaker 6] (2:30:19 - 2:30:19)
1240.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:20 - 2:30:34)
Right, 1240, okay. Sorry about that. Diane, can you just correct that?

Yep. Thank you. Okay, so can I have a motion to approve the 12-18 minutes?

[Speaker 10] (2:30:35 - 2:30:36)
Motion.

[Speaker 1] (2:30:37 - 2:30:52)
Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carries. Okay, so we have the consent done. We have this done.

Motion to address. Select board time. Oh, okay.

So now we go to select board time. Danielle?

[Speaker 10] (2:30:54 - 2:31:45)
Let's see. First meeting of the year. Thank you to Gina Cresta.

You have been a beacon in this town for a number of years, in town hall. I applaud you for having the courage to take on this interim position. It's obviously not been an easy situation, but, you know, I really do feel we are in good hands with you, and as well as with the very qualified department heads throughout town hall that were lucky enough to have work for us.

So thank you. I know it's not easy doing the job of literally two people, but I do appreciate all the time and effort you're putting in. Yeah, that's really all I have.

Thank you. Doug?

[Speaker 9] (2:31:45 - 2:31:54)
A couple things. So what is the latest with our joint meeting with the school committee? Do we have a date?

[Speaker 1] (2:31:55 - 2:31:55)
Yes.

[Speaker 9] (2:31:56 - 2:31:58)
Not a date floated around, but... January 23rd.

[Speaker 1] (2:31:58 - 2:32:12)
January 23rd. The school committee prefers to meet at their meeting here and not have a separate meeting. Okay.

So that will be January 23rd here.

[Speaker 6] (2:32:13 - 2:32:15)
Is that the financial summit?

[Speaker 1] (2:32:15 - 2:32:19)
So that's two weeks from tomorrow? That is the financial conversation.

[Speaker 6] (2:32:19 - 2:32:19)
Okay.

[Speaker 19] (2:32:20 - 2:32:25)
I am not available for that meeting. Huh? I'm not available on the 23rd.

Just FYI.

[Speaker 9] (2:32:31 - 2:32:33)
Can you send out an invite, Diane?

[Speaker 10] (2:32:33 - 2:32:37)
We have to post the agenda anyway, so you have the agenda.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:39 - 2:32:39)
For the 23rd?

[Speaker 10] (2:32:40 - 2:32:40)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:40 - 2:32:43)
I left you the pre-agenda, so you get a chance. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (2:32:43 - 2:32:49)
When do we anticipate having materials to review for that meeting? I mean...

[Speaker 1] (2:32:49 - 2:33:06)
I'll find out from Cheryl. And Amy. Yeah, Cheryl.

There's been a delay. There's been a delay because a staff member lost their father, so... But I'll let you know about that tomorrow.

[Speaker 9] (2:33:10 - 2:33:23)
Okay. And then Climate Action Committee and Renewable Energy Committee have come together and want to come before us and propose combining the committees.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:24 - 2:33:30)
Great. Do they need to come before us to do that, or can their liaison just make that recommendation?

[Speaker 9] (2:33:32 - 2:33:34)
I suppose that is possible, too. Yes.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:36 - 2:33:42)
They want to come see us. Yeah. I'm just concerned about timing, budgets, and things like that.

[Speaker 9] (2:33:43 - 2:33:48)
Yep. Happy to bring that back.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:48 - 2:33:51)
Let's see what we can do. We'll pull the agendas with Diane.

[Speaker 9] (2:33:51 - 2:33:54)
Yeah, I don't think it needs to be elaborate.

[Speaker 1] (2:33:56 - 2:34:13)
Can you also address how we're going forward on, like, the CZM grants and things like that, the timing, and what we're going to be doing to try to get those grants or whatever it's going to take to get those grants the next time?

[Speaker 9] (2:34:13 - 2:35:02)
I can briefly state it now, which is we didn't get those grants, therefore we did the $200,000 through ARPA, which is basically the content that those grants were, the first half of what those grants were targeted toward. And we basically need to play that through. That got bid out, and the process is going to start.

So I don't think we're going to be in a position, really, to think what a big thing that we learned is that we weren't far enough along in our knowledge of what exactly we needed to do. So we need to actually go through our process for this year with the $200,000 to get to a point where probably the following year we'll be in a position to say this is the type of project that we can really successfully bid on for those two types of grants.

[Speaker 1] (2:35:04 - 2:35:05)
Okay. David?

[Speaker 6] (2:35:06 - 2:36:45)
Yep. Yeah, just Mary Ellen, you're the chair, and we rely on you to set the agenda and the discussions at our meetings. And we really need things on our agenda, and by not putting things on agendas, we fail to communicate to the town.

It's a problem. The fact that we had a meeting on the 18th of December, December 30th, and tonight, and we're not talking about a citizen's petition that was signed by over 200 residents, is not doing a service to those individuals. As a board, we've all sat and said we want to listen to our residents, we want to listen to neighbors, and the fact that we have 200-plus certified signatures on a petition should matter.

Mass General Law, Chapter 39, Section 10, select board shall call a special town meeting upon a request of 200 registered voters, and such meeting shall be held not 45 days after the receipt of such request. I think we're in violation. So now we have a select board that arguably has gone against the wishes of our town meeting in 2023 for the Pine Street Project.

We've gone against the actual RFP. We've gone against the veterans and the VFW leadership's requests, and now we're going against Mass General Law. So I really want to course correct.

I look forward to the conversation that we're going to have at our next meeting, and I look forward to scheduling that special town meeting.

[Speaker 19] (2:36:47 - 2:36:59)
Okay. Do you want to talk about the town meeting that we had this time, or do you want to wait until next week? Next week.

Okay, cool.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:03 - 2:40:36)
You sure? Mm-hmm. Okay, so I have had several town meeting members come to me and ask me about some of the comments that were made by the moderator as far as not being given adequate information about processing a special town meeting.

Over the last eight years, we've had a special town meeting on the first or second Monday of December. Our town administrator was aware we were going to be having a special town meeting. I was never informed that the moderator was not informed.

However, I did reach out to the moderator on, I'd like to make sure this is really clear, on October 30th. So there was notice for a special town meeting, and in my opinion, I thought special town meeting went very smoothly. We were in and out, and we took care of business.

On a second note, I would like to address, on the petition, we will be addressing that at the next meeting. We are not in violation of mass general law whatsoever, but that will be a good discussion at our next meeting. And finally, I would like to close by, at our last meeting, Mr. Grishman, you made a comment that I had pressured B'nai B'rith on where to go with the development, and that was very disturbing to me because it's not the first time where you have made comments towards somebody's character. You did that towards the chair of another committee where you called that chair corrupt. And these comments, these words do harm, and I really wish you would think before you speak. Because I want you to know that on the morning of the 19th, I did call the CEO of B'nai, and I did ask her if she was aware of any comments made.

And she wrote to me immediately and said, I hope this is well at your request. I am writing to confirm that at no time in the course of the call on 12-3 with Marzee, David Grishman, or Doug Thompson, did Holly Grace or Yara Yerktuk of our staff say that the chair of the select board was applying extreme pressure related to the development. It has been communicated to me that during this call, the group discussed reports of neighborhood opposition to a four-story building and agreed to study an additional three-story scheme with an attached new 3,000-square-foot VFW, which was subsequently determined to not be viable based on insufficient on-site parking and cost.

It is, of course, our hope that we can build unanimous support by the board in the future. We are committed to working with you and the other members as well as other town officials, neighbors, and stakeholders to continue to build this support. As you know, we are only at the beginning of this process, and it will take all of us working together to ensure that we are successful in creating the equity of housing that local veterans and swamscot citizens deserve.

Thank you for allowing us to get started on this important effort. Susan Gittleman.

[Speaker 9] (2:40:38 - 2:40:41)
I'll just note Susan was not on the call. Correct.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:42 - 2:40:54)
And that is my resident comment. My select board comment. So can I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.