[Speaker 1] (1:41 - 2:06)
Welcome to the February 20th select board meeting. Before we start, I just want to thank Ethan, Russ Dandler, Nate Beischeim, Nathan Kent, and Emilio Rodriguez for bringing us this live production tonight. They always do a great job.

So thank you very much. And if you could join me. We are being recorded.

Join me for the pledge.

[Speaker 13] (2:08 - 2:20)
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Speaker 1] (2:26 - 3:05)
OK, so for those of you joining us tonight, we have a very long agenda. We will be starting with resident comment. You don't have to be a resident of Swampscott to make a comment.

It's just if you want to make a comment, please come up to the microphone. You have a total of three minutes. Katie Phelan is going to give you the heads up at about 20 seconds to go.

And if you could just give your name and your address, and then we can move on. So is there anyone here for resident comment? Mr. Spritz.

[Speaker 12] (3:10 - 3:13)
Is that on? I don't know. I have no idea if it's on.

[Speaker 1] (3:13 - 3:14)
Emilio, is that good?

[Speaker 12] (3:17 - 5:32)
Wayne Spritz, 91 Farragut Road, Precinct 3. I just wanted to make a brief public comment about the UV disinfection project. As a career engineer myself, I kind of look at this as a prototype, which is, is the town ready to pay for whatever the long-term solution is, right?

And it comes down to it's not an inexpensive notion. It could be between $25 and $30 million. Useful life is up to 20 years.

But the question then becomes, really, I'd like to see the conversation about if it's going to take us X years, let's say that's 10 years, right, to fix the pipes. It's really a $25 million. Is that, that's the conversation, right?

If we're willing to do that, and there's a myriad of reasons why we would and why we wouldn't. It's a choice we have to make, and it's going to be a burden on the taxpayers. And I would support either way.

But as long as we're having that conversation, I think that's the smart way to realize it. Because if we are, then I'm totally behind this. Let's go ahead, let's do the prototype, prove it out, and go.

But if we're never, maybe we were willing, if we're willing to spend that money already, then also consider what does it take to accelerate fixing the pipes, right? This solution is specifically for a part of town that will only feed to Stacy's Brook. It doesn't fix the other areas at Fisherman's and so on.

So the last part I want to just get my feedback to is the, I really, if we're going to do this prototype, right, I really want to see it with electric power. Using, let's see, 23,000 gallons of diesel, or nine gallons an hour, is not really fair to the residents. I did a quick back of the NAFTA scratch calculation.

Besides it being $864 a day of diesel, if you were to have a semi-truck sitting in that location, spinning its wheels, going 1,500 miles a day, that's the amount of diesel that you're burning. It may not be an inch where people walk, where residents are going to be, even if it costs $100,000, you're going to spend at least that amount on fuel.

[Speaker 21] (5:32 - 5:33)
20 seconds.

[Speaker 12] (5:33 - 5:37)
I'd like to see that as a consideration, even if it delays the project.

[Speaker 11] (5:41 - 8:18)
My name is John Peterson. I live on Lynn Shore Drive in Lynn. I also am an engineer, and I do a lot of work with biotech and pharmaceutical companies.

And when they make high-purity water, UV is one of the treatments that they utilize to maintain the quality of high-purity water. If you don't maintain it, it's like filling a swimming pool and you watch the sun turn it green. So you're fighting the growth and so forth.

Anyway, as he mentioned, this is going to be a financial commitment, if that's the way you go with it. I have mentioned or written letters to the editor regarding some other technologies that could complement this. You know, it will take time to do it.

You might not get 100% effectiveness. If you get the big storm or you get the big spill, once it's stuck down the beach, it's gone. What I have kind of warmed up to for an idea are oyster reefs.

New York City has the Billion Oyster Project. And there, some government grants, some private grants, and it's been going on for a decade. You can go on YouTube and you can see that and other examples of people doing this and it's being effective.

And so you grow the little seedlings, they get to a certain size, you let them form clusters, and you put them in place, and they survive and they flourish. There are certain places that are better than others. There are people there that know all this stuff, they've made the mistakes, they've learned the lessons.

Call them up, connect with them, start the effort. The Billion Oyster Project is not for consumption in our lifetime. That's their policy.

This is not meant for that. An oyster will filter 50 gallons a day, 55-gallon drum a day each. And they turn over the contents of the harbor every couple of days with just what they've created.

So you don't have to go all in. You could spend thousands of dollars rather than hundreds or millions of dollars and see how it might work. So time's up.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (8:18 - 8:31)
Thank you, Steve. Dr. Friedman? No, we will be doing resident comment now.

Now?

[Speaker 10] (8:39 - 9:48)
Arthur Friedman, Precinct 4. There was a memo or email sent around about what Kleinfelder addressed some of our questions. I don't know if the select board has received it.

I have some questions about it. I think it's great that they did answer some questions about what we had discussed. But with all the discussion covering the pilot and this proposed possible permanent UV treatment installation, how does the permanent installation of this UV treatment really coincide with the repair of the sewage lines?

And I think it was addressed, if the sewage repair takes 10 years, we're proposing a 20-year life on the UV. You know, the question is, we kind of want to spend so much to get it up and running, the permanent one, Plan Part B, so is that going to be financially feasible? And I guess it goes back to asking our G&O, our town administrator, what the anticipated timeline might be.

I know every... But I do know every time we go look, there's another pipe problem. Do you have any idea, talking about...

Let's say Stacybrook, then you have...

[Speaker 14] (9:48 - 9:56)
The Fishmans, then we have Preston Beach, we have Islands Beach. We'll stick with... Kings will probably be 10 to 15 more years if we get the funding.

[Speaker 10] (9:57 - 11:18)
Yeah. And I think there was maybe some... I thought misconception initially last summer when we discussed the phases, and they were talking, well, we're going to spend this much year one, this much year two, this year three.

It wasn't mentioned, well, what about year six, seven, eight, nine, ten? So maybe it was my not understanding that, but I thought it would take maybe five years, maybe not 10 or 15, which is probably more realistic. Okay, that was one idea.

And the thing about the UV program on Stacybrook, it doesn't really address Fishmans Beach, which has to be remedified by the pipe fixing, correct? So, all right. And then we talked about anticipated repair time.

So I guess we have a lot of still unanswered questions here, a lot of variables as far as the cost factor. And with our present administration cutting down funds, it's going to be harder, and everything's going to be coming out of our pocket. I think we have to consider what is going to be the best bang for our buck in trying to remedify this problem.

I'm not saying UV function is wrong. It does work. But is that the way we want to go?

And maybe if not to pilot, but to spend all that money in the future. All right, thank you.

[Speaker 1] (11:18 - 11:23)
Thank you, Dr. Friedman. Mayor?

[Speaker 7] (11:24 - 11:25)
So you don't have to be a resident?

[Speaker 1] (11:25 - 11:31)
You do not. But you do get three minutes.

[Speaker 7] (11:32 - 13:48)
Laughter Your name and address. And then Swamps Good owns the pipes and the beach, and the City of Lynn really has no formal... And then Swamps Good owns the pipes and the beach, and the City of Lynn really has no formal role, but we felt like there was a role for us to try to bring everybody together.

And that's what we did when we started in 2022. And Kleinfelder evaluated a bunch of different alternatives, you know, strongly recommending aggressive pursuit of source elimination, but also putting out UV as the leading complementary alternative. And I think that's a really important point here, is that we are all laser-focused on the source elimination.

And everyone we've talked to, including the regulators, DEP, thinks that an alternate solution to complement the source elimination is going to be necessary for the beach to be open an acceptable amount of time when the pipes are fixed. The UV was the most attractive from a cost and time perspective. That was in end of 22, beginning of 23, they made that recommendation.

There was a change in the state administration. We had a pretty lengthy back and forth with different state agencies about the UV as a concept. Written answers and responses that we shared back and forth.

That took almost a year. And we settled on this sampling plan to go out and get data by pulling water out of Stacey's Brook and Kings Beach and sending it to the lab at Trojan, which is the UV vendor, and seeing if the technology worked on water actually from the ground. And it did.

And that was in the fall. And now we've been pursuing this pilot. We have a lot of questions about what a permanent solution would look like in terms of location, and funding.

Wouldn't we recognize that? But for us to get to those questions, I think we need to prove out the concept and the pilot. That's what we've been working towards.

We've been really approaching this collaboratively. It's funded on our side from the $5 million earmark that the delegation obtained that was split 50-50 between Lynn and Swamska. We thought we had an opportunity to get a $20 million grant last year.

We thought we had a real chance. We put in for $12.5 million for source elimination because that's the priority. And we proposed to split it $8 million for Swamska.

Hold on.

[Speaker 1] (13:51 - 13:56)
So your name and your address and your Girl Scout rank?

[Speaker 20] (13:58 - 14:36)
My name is May Mancini, and I live on 68 Walker Road. I am a cadet in Girl Scouts, and last year my troop did a bronze award project to help King's Beach. We did a bag for the library, and I'm not sure if it's there yet, to teach people about how King's Beach is dirty.

I think we should put the UV in so kids can swim in the summer when they don't have the chance to swim at the other beaches in Swampscot. And that's all.

[Speaker 1] (14:36 - 14:45)
Thank you, Ms. Mancini. Or I should say Cadet Mancini. Is there anyone?

Sir?

[Speaker 19] (14:54 - 15:38)
Thanks. My name is Mike Salona, 139 Woodlawn Street in Lynn. I'm Vice President of Friends of Lynn and the Hot Beach, as well as Chair of the Lynn and Water Sewer Commission Executive Board.

I'm also joined here by the other members of the board. So all five of us are here tonight to show our support for this effort to finally get somewhere. What often that we hear is, you know, not enough is being done.

Why is this taking so long? It's a complicated effort. Lynn, Water, and Sewer has been working at it for decades.

We have the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt to show for the work that's been done. But the concerted effort that the mayor and the individuals in Lynn, Water, and Sewer and in Swampscot have put together...

[Speaker 1] (15:38 - 15:43)
Is there anyone else for a public comment? Another Mancini?

[Speaker 9] (15:46 - 17:22)
Hi, I'm Chris Mancini. I also live at 68 Walker Road. Just full disclosure, I presented both sides of the situation.

I said, you say whatever you want. Sure. But yeah, I think most people know where I stay.

Austin, to be the cleanest urban beach in the country. And I moved to Swampscot specifically to try to finish the job because King's Beach is the dirtiest in the Commonwealth. And I just want to, again, throw my support.

I really appreciate how the two municipalities have been working together so well over the last couple of years. It's a complicated issue. There's so much nitty-gritty.

But it comes down to what the discussion is today. Should we do a pilot of this UV this summer? And anyone who's spent more than five minutes talking to me knows I'm obsessed with this other emerging technology about ozone nanobubbles.

It's really interesting. But the fact that I'm standing here saying we should do the UV pilot, I don't take that lightly. So I think it's a question.

I'm not taking the price lightly either. I think we have to look, evaluate. This is going to be a cost.

But what we're going to have in 2025, if we get this done in time, is an open King's Beach for the first time in however long, 100 years, let's say. And I do think that's worth it. So you all are the ones that have to vote.

And you're the ones taking care of a multimillion-dollar town budget. I understand there's so many complicated points there. But I just hope you will seriously consider this and take this next step forward for King's Beach.

Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (17:22 - 17:24)
Thank you, Mr. Mancini.

[Speaker 22] (17:34 - 17:35)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (17:40 - 17:53)
Okay, so I don't see any more hands raised in the audience. We're going to go to. Hello.

[Speaker 15] (17:57 - 19:42)
I can't hear you anymore. Can you hear me? You can't hear me?

Okay, for some reason I can't hear you so there might be an issue with the sound for the folks who are online now. But I'm going to barrel ahead anyways. Katie, can you just give me a thumbs up to make sure you can still hear me?

Thank you. Okay, so Andrea Moore, Precinct 3, town meeting member and founder of Save Kings Beach. I wanted to start by saying I'm really speech and I want to have everybody look around the room and see how many smart, passionate people who deeply care about this issue are around you.

This is a really good thing and we should all be proud of the positive progress that we are making. So as you begin debating this issue, I want each of you to know how appreciative I am that we are all having the good fortune to be at the table together discussing, hopefully civilly, the path forward for this project. That and the dozens of others who have taken up this extremely difficult task and truly let us all continue to work together.

That being said, there is a lot of source elimination work that has still not been addressed by either Lynn or Swampscott. Sewer lateral ordinances, ponds that flow into Stacy's Brook with unknown bacteria levels, inconsistent testing regimens in both Lynn and Swampscott, CCTV work that has unfortunately stalled in the city of Lynn. So as part of this conversation, as we consider UV, I urge the select board and the city of Lynn to zoom out and look at the whole ecosystem affecting Stacy's Brook.

Thank you.

[Speaker 24] (19:44 - 19:47)
Thank you, Andrea, Maureen.

[Speaker 1] (19:53 - 20:01)
So we are going to move forward now under new and old business. So we'll begin with our town clerk.

[Speaker 4] (20:03 - 20:08)
Mary Ellen, is there a reason we don't just take up this topic since all these people are here waiting for it?

[Speaker 1] (20:09 - 20:20)
Well, because we also have staff here, Doug, and we're just going to, I prefer that we go over the finances first, and then we can, go ahead, Jared.

[Speaker 8] (20:27 - 22:35)
Thank you for having me. I was asked to come down today to give an update on the town clerk's office along with the public records section of my office. Town clerk's office is in the middle of a busy season.

We just had census go out in January, which we're finishing up, along with dog licensing in the style of our local election season. So far, we've had a very good showing of town meeting members who are currently active, who have put papers to run again and again, along with a number of new people who are excited to run for the first time. Our deadline to put papers is March 7th, and then March 11th to get them back, at which point we'll be finalizing the ballot for our April 29th local town election.

There are a number of transitions up state, town-wide, and all that information is on the front page of the sponsor website, along with the town clerk's section of it, if anyone is interested in that. Next is just, I wanted to give, I was asked to give a brief overview of public records in my office. I have supplied this report with a full breakdown of the law itself.

We then forward them to the custodian. Town clerk's office does hold the records themselves, by each individual department, who holds the records, which is governed by the retention schedule of the state of Massachusetts. We then work with the various departments to correct the records, to do what we need to do to be compliant with state law.

The only thing I want to highlight is, so it's on the back page of your handout, is the town of Wattsburg last year got a little north of 1,400 public records requests. That's for all departments. It's not an exact science.

Some of them are really simple, quick, that we can get done without much effort, and I try to get those out as quickly as possible.

[Speaker 9] (22:35 - 22:41)
That's not counting everyone that's come in, but that's the vast majority of them that have come in.

[Speaker 8] (22:42 - 24:52)
The biggest department by far is the police department, given the nature of their work, incident reports for all sorts of different incidents, accidents, et cetera, followed by the fire department, and then the town office building as a whole. This year, so far, we have had 257 requests to date, which is an uptick over the past few years in public records requests. In addition, the 10-year census, we are charged, we are roughly at 15,000 right now, 15,500 by the last census.

The town concentration office and the town administrator has made a determination of anything over half an hour we charge in order so that the burden is not put on the taxpayers to fund public records requests. So far in this fiscal year, talking directly, we have collected over $1,100 worth of fees in line with state law. Several petitions have gone in recently, and we have seen an uptick in requests for privilege information, which requires legal counsel to look at it, which is, each time that happens, we do go to, and while we're not charging the full amount that legal counsel costs the town, it does somewhat cost the town itself.

In that vein, talking to the finance director, because of some of the public records requests, the town's legal, what town's records spent on legal has gone up, but we are actively trying to make sure that we spend the town's money wisely as we employees drop. So, happy to answer any questions that the board has, comments in a sense.

[Speaker 1] (24:52 - 24:54)
Does anybody have a question?

[Speaker 4] (24:54 - 24:55)
Why are we talking about this?

[Speaker 1] (24:57 - 24:59)
I'm going to have a question. Do you have a question?

[Speaker 4] (24:59 - 25:02)
For you, yeah, why are we talking about this? I have no idea.

[Speaker 1] (25:03 - 25:15)
It's been brought up, if you've been listening to the public comments, it's been brought up over and over and over, and that's why the clerk is here giving an update on what FOIA is and what the election is like.

[Speaker 4] (25:15 - 25:43)
I remember one person that was interested in why they weren't responding too timely, and why they were charged so much. Have we asked people to pay more than $25 an hour?

[Speaker 8] (25:43 - 25:45)
Yes, for legal counsel.

[Speaker 4] (25:46 - 25:48)
Why would we need legal counsel involved?

[Speaker 8] (25:49 - 26:08)
There have been requests for privileged information. We still have to inform the person that we have records, which our legal counsel needs to go through. They are the lowest paid employees, and I am not a lawyer.

I do not pretend to be one, and so the legal counsel is required on those public records requests.

[Speaker 2] (26:08 - 26:12)
Doug, it's mostly to redact information that needs to remain privileged.

[Speaker 4] (26:14 - 26:15)
Doesn't that happen a lot?

[Speaker 8] (26:17 - 26:54)
Not like, there's been an update. Previous to this year, there was maybe a handful of that work, but it's been an update. It hasn't been of my kind, no it's not.

For this year, there was a rash when I started going to legal counsel, and I was brought to my attention about the amount that was being spent. And talking to our legal counsel about what we can charge, what we can't charge for, and what I want to say was, October-November was actually the first time we requested it.

[Speaker 4] (26:54 - 26:56)
So how many times have we done that?

[Speaker 8] (26:56 - 27:04)
I'd have to get you one say about that. About ten? Maybe a little bit less?

[Speaker 4] (27:05 - 27:07)
Ten times we've charged people more than $25 an hour?

[Speaker 8] (27:08 - 27:11)
We have requested from them, the supervisor.

[Speaker 1] (27:13 - 27:29)
For releasing his FOIA, and I just want to make it really clear, and you can clear this up, the board has nothing to do with FOIA requests. With releasing FOIA requests, holding up a FOIA request, or anything like that.

[Speaker 8] (27:29 - 27:50)
No, it's my office. The only way the board is involved is if I need to go to the board for records of their own. Which has happened on occasion, but the board has never directed me to release one, to direct my office to do any of that.

I've only gone to the board when necessary to get documents that are public records.

[Speaker 1] (27:51 - 27:56)
So his gratitude for the release is really for you, not for us.

[Speaker 6] (27:56 - 28:16)
I have a question. So Jared, in late January, a resident was told there was a new policy to charge for the time. You know, with the review of the records request, determine if there was privileged items included.

Who created the new policy?

[Speaker 8] (28:16 - 28:23)
So that was in consultation with the previous account administrator, Sean Schell. We had a way to call into an account administrator.

[Speaker 6] (28:25 - 28:39)
So do we have a copy? Is it a written policy or is it a verbal policy? Okay, and we provided that information to that specific resident.

Provided that information to that specific resident. Is that correct?

[Speaker 8] (28:39 - 28:39)
No, we didn't.

[Speaker 6] (28:43 - 28:49)
Was that resident charged for that request?

[Speaker 8] (28:49 - 28:56)
I do not believe so. But again, I have to look at my spreadsheet. I get several hundred a year.

I have to go check. Okay.

[Speaker 6] (28:57 - 29:05)
Are you aware that previously town council had advised that such individual evaluations may be privileged as non-public personnel?

[Speaker 8] (29:06 - 29:12)
I remember talking to them about it. I don't remember what the discussion was in particular.

[Speaker 6] (29:12 - 29:17)
Okay, so did you or did you not seek a town council opinion prior to releasing? You did?

[Speaker 8] (29:18 - 29:21)
That was prior to the new policy going into effect, yes.

[Speaker 6] (29:21 - 29:23)
Okay, and they said that was okay.

[Speaker 1] (29:23 - 29:27)
I would have to check my emails. Are you saying we didn't release?

[Speaker 6] (29:27 - 29:46)
Yeah, I am. So we don't know if we charged that individual. And then did you know that there is a legal privilege that may be applied to a document?

It's a vote and only a vote of this board that can decide whether to apply that privilege or not.

[Speaker 8] (29:47 - 29:50)
You're talking about personnel privilege? Yes.

[Speaker 6] (29:51 - 29:54)
Did this board take a vote or a previous iteration?

[Speaker 8] (29:54 - 30:00)
I do not know whether we released it. I don't know. So I couldn't speak to that.

I'd have to go check.

[Speaker 6] (30:01 - 30:06)
Okay. But I'm pretty sure that that information was released because I was on this board.

[Speaker 8] (30:07 - 30:08)
I would, again.

[Speaker 6] (30:10 - 30:30)
I just got to say, I mean, I'm looking at these quick facts and everything else that got dropped on us at 3 o'clock. We're talking about in 2024, we had almost 1,400 public records requests. We're talking about police have the largest amount of public records requests.

Does that go through your office, Mr. Town Clerk?

[Speaker 8] (30:31 - 30:35)
The police do it in consultation with my office, yes.

[Speaker 6] (30:35 - 30:58)
Got it. Okay. And there's just also numbers from 2025, 257 public records requests.

But down below, we talk about 55 requests from your office. So it just seems that the numbers and the information, it just doesn't jive. Just with what I'm seeing under quick facts on page three.

[Speaker 8] (30:58 - 31:20)
So I break out the ones that the police specifically deal with because a lot of them are shorter and easier to handle than the ones my office gets. Specifically, just separate from that, just to kind of highlight some facts.

[Speaker 6] (31:21 - 31:36)
Got it. Okay. Because, I mean, you're showing 1369.

And there was a spreadsheet that was provided, I believe, to Ms. Arrington that showed 157 on the spreadsheet. That's a big discrepancy.

[Speaker 8] (31:36 - 31:41)
She asked for the ones that I had from my office, so I provided her with those.

[Speaker 6] (31:42 - 31:42)
Okay.

[Speaker 4] (31:43 - 32:14)
All right. Can I just make sure I'm following what you're asking, David? So is the point kind of, like, in some ways the subtext on all this feels like there's so much work that has to be done that we need to charge people for the work.

But it actually, correct me if I'm wrong, Jared, it feels like the vast majority of the records requests actually are processed by the police department. So, like, out of 257 this year, 55 actually were done by your office?

[Speaker 8] (32:15 - 32:39)
Yes. So, basically, but that is not how I view public records requests. It's the amount of time it takes to do each one.

A lot of the police department ones are, hi, I got into an accident. Can I get my incident report? Very easy for Lieutenant Freire to handle those, get those out quickly.

A lot of mine are hours worth of work in order to get all the information that is required for them.

[Speaker 6] (32:40 - 35:12)
No, again, I just got to say, I mean, this seems eerily familiar and similar to our last meeting where we had a presentation about executive sessions. We had no advance notice. We had no chance to prepare for the conversation.

We were shown very fuzzy statistics. You know, no one on the board except the chair knew what was going to be shared. You know, it just felt, you know, the executive session presentation felt like propaganda.

We received a note from a resident who said, and I quote, after our last meeting, regarding the statistics you showed, the 2025 Fletcher figures are misleading because the number of months in the period is fewer than the previous. This makes the select board appear either manipulative or incompetent. And just tonight's presentation just feels extremely similar to me.

You know, so, I mean, some of the things that I learned since our agenda was posted, it seems the number of public records requests from June 24 to mid-January 25 was 98. Twenty-eight were filed by Swampscott residents. And three times of the 28, the clerk charged a fee.

And in each of those three times, he sought permission from the Secretary of State to charge the highest hourly fee allowed by law. If you want information about the select board, you have to pay for it, residents. But if you want any information about anything else, including potentially privileged and private information about town employees, no problem.

Just ask for it. But you'll look into that and check into that for us. So, you know, before my colleagues accused me of grandstanding and politicizing this, I didn't put this topic on the agenda.

The chair did. I just think this, I think the public records behavior and the new policy is scary. I think it's heads on backwards.

I think it's way too similar to the autocratic policies that we're seeing nationally. You know, and no disrespect to you, Mr. Clerk, I don't think you're making these decisions yourself. I think you're acting with direction from someone.

In either way, we should be concerned. You know, and this is the reason I strongly support the citizens petition that was filed the other week seeking to change the town of Swampskate bylaws to ensure that residents are not charged for public records. This petition was filed by nine former select board members and two former finance committee members.

We shouldn't need former elected and prominent leaders and appointed and elected to show this current board how to lead.

[Speaker 4] (35:12 - 35:15)
So when would we when would we find out about that?

[Speaker 1] (35:15 - 35:24)
And who would tell us? Oh, when it comes for the war, it goes on to the warrants. When we start discussing the warrant, it just automatically goes in.

[Speaker 8] (35:25 - 35:36)
Anybody can file a petition, which is not enough to go into town administrator when I certified it in my office. Which is how it's worked since I've been here.

[Speaker 1] (35:36 - 35:37)
It just automatically goes on to the war.

[Speaker 4] (35:38 - 35:43)
Sure. Understood. But it would be nice if you guys know about it to let us know that there's a citizen.

[Speaker 1] (35:43 - 35:55)
I was just standing there when the individual walked by. So that's the only reason. And I don't I actually I didn't know if it was certified.

I just heard that I heard about it. I don't know where we're at.

[Speaker 2] (35:57 - 35:58)
According to the board.

[Speaker 1] (35:58 - 36:38)
So I just want to be really clear. No one on this board is telling you to charge people X amount of dollars. And any of these policies were already voted on.

I think that the policy for charging people was voted on two years ago by this board. And it was a request by Mr. Fitzgerald. So you can go back and look at the minutes.

Because I actually had a concern at the time was would we be charging residents? How does this affect residents? And the number one concern was how many people were sending in requests that were not residents.

I guess individuals just looking for more information. That was the explanation at the time.

[Speaker 8] (36:38 - 36:41)
If I might just say one thing.

[Speaker 1] (36:41 - 36:42)
You go right ahead.

[Speaker 8] (36:42 - 37:15)
Thank you. We do not charge the limit of what we can charge for the legal as you intimated. We only charge what she wanted.

We were going to charge her. There's going to be a voluminous request. She explained what she wanted.

And Ms. Harlow and I were able to work with her and get her the information for free for what she wanted. We do try to work with the citizens of Swampstock. I do very much believe in open government and that the citizens have a right to get this information.

I try my best.

[Speaker 4] (37:15 - 37:34)
Incredibly ridiculously tight budget. But I don't think the place to solve this is a couple hundred dollars putting an impediment in terms of people getting access to information even if it's privileged and needs to be redacted. So if we need to revisit that policy, let's do it.

So I think that's just absurd.

[Speaker 5] (37:35 - 37:49)
Jared, could you tell me, I'm not sure if this is on, but are there other towns, you know, comparable towns that have a similar price structure or policy regarding what they do and do not charge for it? Have you done that research?

[Speaker 8] (37:50 - 38:13)
I have anecdotally talked to a few other towns. I could do the market research. If you wish me to, the research from other towns.

But on large requests, that is standard practice. It was standard practice in the last town I worked in on really big requests. It's to do that.

I will just mention that towns that are too much bigger than us can't charge for the first two hours under statute. So, you know, we're kind of the higher end.

[Speaker 5] (38:14 - 39:32)
It certainly should not be and is not appropriate in my view. But I do appreciate your answers and your response. And I trust your level of professionalism when you're enacting these policies or working with the TA or interim TA to go over these policies.

I do also think that with our legal bills, and we're going to see in a couple minutes just exactly where they are, in a couple minutes just exactly where they are and how much over they are, it makes sense that when legal is involved or has to be involved because of redaction or whatever, that we do pass on a fee for that. You know, we are asking for a lot to be done in certain cases and certain requests. From what you're saying, that I think it is fair that if people really want, you know, lots and lots of information that require a lot of your time, a lot of lawyers' time to go through that stuff, you know, we can't just inherently eat that charge, right, or eat that fee.

I mean, I think that and I do appreciate that you work with people and you do try to do as much as you can so it doesn't cost them as much as necessary. But again, that is something that you're allowed to do per MGL and many other towns do the same. So I don't see that it's outside of our bounds and, you know, and love your information.

I appreciate it.

[Speaker 3] (39:33 - 40:22)
May I? Please. I think echoing some of the things that Danielle has passed, that Danielle has said, but also understanding that if there is a policy in place, just making sure that it's being followed uniformly.

Right? And I'm not claiming it is or isn't. I'm just stating that because master than what we do, right, so we've set an internal policy which is less than the law allows.

So now instead of saying the law is worse, right, we could be more onerous to citizens. We chose not to be. But then making sure that in choosing not to be that we are doing so across the board.

[Speaker 8] (40:23 - 41:00)
Yes, we take that very seriously. We apply it equally across the board to everyone since this has gone in. We, again, we do try to make sure citizens get the information they need.

I am more than willing to either take direction from the board if this is something you wish to change, or work with the TA to get a formal written policy down so that it is stated on our website, so that citizens know when they're doing it, whatever would be best. I am happy to do that. I'm happy to make sure that that is the case.

[Speaker 3] (41:02 - 41:22)
I think that might be helpful if we are choosing as a board or not. If we're going to discuss this policy going forward and then whatever policy decision is made, making sure that it's available to the public so that they know in advance, so that they don't show up and then feel like, oh, this is happening just against me, but that it's actually a policy that we've given them notice to.

[Speaker 8] (41:22 - 41:36)
Very good point. Very good point. Thank you very much.

I will work with the TA and make sure that everyone knows and that no one feels as though they are being targeted unfairly by this. I would never want that to be the case.

[Speaker 1] (41:37 - 41:37)
Thank you, Jared.

[Speaker 8] (41:38 - 41:38)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (41:38 - 41:44)
Okay. Next, we have the discussion on appointing a poet laureate.

[Speaker 6] (41:44 - 41:51)
Madam Chair, once again, I would like to request that we take the UV pilot discussion and possible vote out of order.

[Speaker 1] (41:51 - 42:02)
Mr. Grishman, we have Swamp Scout residents that have been sitting here to discuss this poet laureate, and then we have our financial, so I can appreciate the people that are here.

[Speaker 6] (42:02 - 42:10)
I would like to make a motion that we take this out of order and we immediately discuss Water Sewer Advisory Committee's UV pilot program. Second.

[Speaker 1] (42:13 - 42:14)
All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (42:14 - 42:15)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (42:16 - 42:17)
Against?

[Speaker 3] (42:18 - 42:22)
I would rather discuss the budget before we discuss the UV because I think there's implications there.

[Speaker 1] (42:22 - 42:31)
I just need five minutes for the poet. I promise. So, the poet laureate.

[Speaker 16] (42:41 - 43:20)
Thank you, Mary Ellen Fletcher, Chair, and other members of the Select Board, for the invitation to address you on the position of poet laureate of Swamp Scout. My name is Stephen Iannacone, 26 Rock Ave., and with me are two of the other past poets laureate of Swamp Scout, Lee Eric Friedman and Nancy Hewitt. Unfortunately, the fourth was unable to be here today.

Her name is Shelly Jankowski-Smith. We'd like to start with a brief presentation of poems by Shelly. They are in the form of a Japanese poetry style known as haiku.

The photographs are her originals, and can we have the first one?

[Speaker 17] (43:40 - 43:48)
First haiku. I love our town pier. The way it stands there shaking its fists to the sea.

[Speaker 23] (43:49 - 43:50)
Next.

[Speaker 18] (43:57 - 44:00)
Nancy Hewitt, 55 Thomas Road.

[Speaker 16] (44:23 - 44:59)
Jared, why don't we just skip the next one because time is going. What is a poet laureate? Great question.

To be honest, there's not a definitive answer looking through the history of the title. A poet laureate elevates the pursuit of artistic communication. By including this as an element of the town's community expression, it encourages other modes of art.

The poet laureate is a writer who, among other poets, has attained some achievement in their work. The role focuses on encouraging the writing, study, and reading of poetry in its wide range of styles and types.

[Speaker 17] (45:02 - 45:36)
So Swampscot has a history of appointing poet laureates from 2014 to 2020. The program was founded by Sammy Lawler. She's a retired elementary school teacher from Stanley School, and she was the creator, and she served as the first administrator to the program.

She realized that the town of Swampscot possesses many fine writers and sought to honor some of those, as well as writing poetry as part of the person's lifelong work, such as workshops and things like that.

[Speaker 18] (45:39 - 46:34)
It should be noted that other communities are taking this opportunity to begin or resurrect poets laureate, including Lynn and Salem. A process to select a Massachusetts state poet laureate has just recently been announced by our governor. In your written statement, you will find a more comprehensive list of communities in Massachusetts and other states honoring their poets.

In your written packet, there is also an outline of the process by which the past, as well as future, poets laureate were or would be chosen. As past receivers of this honor, we are committed to assisting whomever the select board Come on. Whomever the select board determines will administer the program.

Thank you for this time to allow us to make this presentation. We are here also to answer any questions you might have.

[Speaker 1] (46:36 - 46:55)
Does anybody have any questions on the process for Excuse me. Does anybody have any questions for the I do have one question. Is this something that the library board of trustees could work with and then make a recommendation or is this something that has to I think so.

[Speaker 17] (46:55 - 47:10)
The library's work. I'm the president of the tin box poets, which you probably know. And we were in our group has worked with the library in the past for contests as well as open mic nights and things like that.

[Speaker 1] (47:10 - 47:55)
OK, so is that are you the liaison? So is that something that you can OK. So Katie Phelan is going to take up that charge.

So you'll be hearing from Katie. OK. And then we'll find out if there's anything we have to do.

You know, I think if the trustees give us a recommendation on who you want, then we could vote for it and make it official. How does that sound? OK.

Thank you. Thank you for coming. OK.

Patrick. Want to do the bond. So I have a presentation of we're just going to do our bond real quick and then we're going into our financial presentation.

[Speaker 13] (47:55 - 50:05)
Thank you for having me. Patrick Lutty, town treasurer. A series of.

A little bit of background. I was before you about a year ago today to conduct a note sale million dollar note. And that's coming due March six.

So in anticipation of that, I've met with the director of finance administration and we structured out a. Thank you. Thank you.

We structured out what a new debt issue would be. And this debt issue addresses refinancing. The amounts are coming due as well as financing continued spending on capital projects that have been at the last issued debt.

And part of this process, we met with two analysts from Standard and Poor's. I met with them jointly with the director of finance administration and the town administrator. Our credit rating was reaffirmed.

And our term rating, which is the highest share of credit that a municipality can have. So we continue to hold that in our hat. And yesterday we conducted the sale.

We received competitive bids on both the bonds and the notes. And the note is almost $11 million, and we received seven bids, which is more than we received last time we sold notes last year. We received five.

So there's more competition. The net interest cost for the winning bid was 2.835% on the note, and that's going to be awarded to Fidelity Capital Markets. And on the bond, we received 10 bids.

Last time we sold bonds, we received eight. So, again, more competition. Total interest cost of 3.03%. And that's about $3.1 million in bonds. And attached to your memo that I sent you on the 13th, I gave you the uses of the proceeds from the sale, which are all town meeting group projects that are ongoing or completed. And I'll entertain any questions. And then I have a consolidated motion that I'd ask you to consider.

[Speaker 1] (50:07 - 50:10)
Can you just repeat? What's the interest on the bond? Is that Fidelity?

[Speaker 13] (50:11 - 50:19)
It's 2.835% net interest cost, and it's Fidelity Capital Markets is the winning bidder.

[Speaker 1] (50:22 - 50:26)
Does anybody have a motion? So is this the motion that I have in front of me?

[Speaker 13] (50:27 - 50:28)
It should be. I hope so.

[Speaker 1] (50:28 - 50:45)
So can I have a motion that the written votes presented in this meeting in connection with the town sale of its notes and bonds be adopted as written and incorporated into the minutes of this meeting in full? So moved. Second?

Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 23] (50:45 - 50:46)
Aye. Aye.

[Speaker 1] (50:46 - 50:56)
Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Luddy. Now Ms. Sorrell for town finances.

[Speaker 2] (51:08 - 54:12)
When the town administrator and I were before the board at the last meeting, we were discussing the town administrator's preliminary budget and discussing some of the concerns that we were having and issues we were running into with regards to the reduction in local receipts as well as the increases in health insurance and some other costs. So the board had asked that we put together a couple different budget scenarios to see how we move forward for the next meeting where the town administrator's budget will be recommended. So with that, this is just an overview of the revenue estimates that are static in each of these scenarios.

The state aid is at the governor's current proposal. Estimated local receipts are at just under $5.1 million, and the indirect costs from our enterprise funds are just over $1 million. That's static in every one of these scenarios.

The town administrator and I came up with five different budget scenarios that we ran through in trying to make sure that we were balancing the tax burden on our residents as well as providing the needed services as well as the level of service that this town had come to expect. So this is a breakdown of those five just as an overview of either stabilization and or excess levy capacity. For obvious reasons, we put this at a very high level.

So scenario one would be that 2% plus 425. That results in only $945,000 of additional revenues, net of all the revenue sources. With this, we would need to do a reduction of 25 positions, equivalent to 16.21 FTE, including the closure of one of the town departments. We would reduce non-mandatory expenses. We would institute a hiring freeze with the exception of the town administrator and building commissioner vacancies, and we would do a wage freeze for any non-contracted staff. Scenario two is utilizing 2.5 instead of the 2%, which gives us $1.2 million of estimated revenue, and we are pretty much in the same scenario. To give a very high-level look at this, the top seven lines are kind of shared expenses that are on the town side of the ledger. So property casualty workers' comp, end of employment, debt, payroll, health insurance, pension, and the state assessments. I have the other town departments rolled up there, and then the direct allocation to the Swamp State Public Schools.

These percentages are reflective of the percent of the overall general fund budget.

[Speaker 4] (54:15 - 54:20)
Just so I'm following, Amy, just a clarification. Yes. You have this page in here after scenario two?

[Speaker 2] (54:21 - 55:42)
Scenario four uses $1.5 million, bringing our revenue estimate to 2.74 over the current year, as well as the breakdown. And then scenario five would be using $2 million of our excess or our stabilization for $3.2 million additional, would still include a reduction of $3.2 million additional, would still include a reduction of four for 3.47 FTE on the town side. And here's the breakdown.

So in pretty much all scenarios, it's a comparison of approximately 34% of those shared expenses, 21% roughly of the rest of the town departments, and 44 for the school. This is in line with where we've been trending with how that's allocated. There was obviously a shift in here in FY23 because of the debt for the new school.

This is just a reflection of our current reserve positions. So 2.5 in available free cash and 7.7 in our excess levy capacity, according to the Department of Revenue.

[Speaker 21] (55:46 - 55:54)
Amy, going back to that slide for the general stabilization, can you tell us, remind us again what the recommendation is?

[Speaker 2] (55:54 - 56:03)
The financial policy recommended guideline is 9 to 10%, so $442,000 of it is available above that 9% threshold.

[Speaker 21] (56:05 - 56:11)
$442,000 would still put us within our financial guidance?

[Speaker 2] (56:11 - 56:18)
Yeah, so if the vote to town meeting was $442,000, you would still be at the low end of your recommended.

[Speaker 4] (56:19 - 56:21)
And can you say the same thing for free cash?

[Speaker 2] (56:21 - 56:28)
Free cash is about $200,000. And what's the guidance? 3 to 5%.

[Speaker 21] (56:28 - 56:30)
3 to 5%.

[Speaker 3] (56:32 - 56:35)
One there, not a combination of both.

[Speaker 2] (56:35 - 56:57)
So part of what we get the feel of the board of kind of which scenario you feel most comfortable with, and then if it's scenarios 3, 4, or 5, what the feel of the board is with regard to which bucket, and that can still evolve throughout the process before town meeting.

[Speaker 4] (56:59 - 57:04)
Did you mention what the assumption is for the school budget in each of these scenarios?

[Speaker 2] (57:05 - 57:13)
So it's varying in each scenario. Basically, as the revenue increased, the school budget increased as well.

[Speaker 1] (57:14 - 57:20)
As the revenue increases? But the revenue I thought you have is holding the same in each scenario.

[Speaker 2] (57:20 - 57:32)
Stabilization and excess levy are also considered revenue sources. So basically, as you go through scenarios. What's the same in every scenario except 5?

It should not be.

[Speaker 1] (57:32 - 57:38)
So you're saying that the percentage that you're allocating in the school budget varies over each scenario?

[Speaker 21] (57:39 - 57:43)
Yes. Oh, not the dollar amount, but the percentage of the budget you're saying?

[Speaker 2] (57:43 - 57:52)
We adjusted the amount so that it stays approximately 44% of the overall general fund budget.

[Speaker 3] (57:52 - 58:06)
Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. At least 3 and 4, it stays the same.

Okay. That may have been an error on my part. 5 goes up.

And it goes up a little bit from 2 to 3, but between 3 and 4, it stays the same. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (58:11 - 58:26)
I'm going to be super transparent. So we've had individual meetings with the interim time. None of these scenarios assume that level of increase.

Is that correct?

[Speaker 2] (58:26 - 58:27)
That is correct.

[Speaker 4] (58:27 - 58:29)
I just want to be super clear about that.

[Speaker 2] (58:30 - 58:30)
Normally is.

[Speaker 4] (58:31 - 58:43)
No, I'm saying what the assumption is here is about 3.25%. Even though their request is 4.79. And historically, what has been their increase?

[Speaker 1] (58:45 - 58:46)
I would have to double check.

[Speaker 2] (58:46 - 58:47)
It is 3 something.

[Speaker 23] (58:48 - 58:48)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (58:53 - 59:00)
So obviously with regard to these increases, I figured the next question would be, what does this do to the taxes?

[Speaker 4] (59:01 - 59:16)
Can I, before you go there, I'm a little bit, based on our earlier conversations, it seems like things even got worse in the last couple of days. Or I misunderstood something earlier. Because I thought once we got to scenario 5, that there would be no reductions in FTEs.

[Speaker 2] (59:18 - 59:36)
So we were not able to do it with no reductions. And I don't want to say that they are not painful reductions. Obviously not as impactful as the first two scenarios.

[Speaker 4] (59:37 - 59:45)
Sure. And this kind of language reduction of non-mandatory expenses.

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

[Speaker 4] (59:46 - 59:48)
That's beyond the FTE reductions.

[Speaker 2] (59:49 - 59:49)
Correct.

[Speaker 4] (59:49 - 59:53)
So maybe we're more thrifty with legal fees or something.

[Speaker 2] (59:53 - 59:58)
One would hope. I did not reduce the legal fees in any of these scenarios.

[Speaker 4] (59:58 - 1:00:10)
What's the magnitude of that, generally speaking, that type of reduction? Are we talking about $100,000? Are we talking about you're finding $500,000 or more in non-mandatory expense reduction?

[Speaker 2] (1:00:12 - 1:00:16)
It is over half a million of non-mandatory expense reductions.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:25 - 1:00:28)
Which are going to be real. I mean, I have to assume.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:29 - 1:00:29)
Yes.

[Speaker 4] (1:00:31 - 1:00:57)
People are going to feel it somewhere. I'm not sure if you mentioned, I might have missed it in the beginning, the two big factors that are particularly driving. Did you mention that?

I didn't.

[Speaker 2] (1:00:58 - 1:01:33)
So I've talked to you all so much this week. The two biggest drivers is really the reduction in local receipts through the investment income, because we spent the bond proceeds from the new school. We were fortunate that that gave us about $2 million of additional local receipts in the last two years.

And we now have a beautiful new elementary school. We just don't have the money sitting in the bank. And then the other is the building permits anticipated to be happening in FY26 or FY27.

[Speaker 4] (1:01:34 - 1:01:35)
How about health insurance?

[Speaker 2] (1:01:36 - 1:02:44)
The other one is the health insurance. So our health insurance is, right now we're through the GIC. At this stage, they're still recommending that we budget for a 10.5% rate increase, which is about $1.02 million increase for what we have right now for enrollees, bringing our health insurance budget to just under $7.99 million right now in the projected FY26 budget. We will have the actual rates by the end of March, which will be during the Finance Committee's review and process of the budget, and we will make the reduction that is hopefully coming when we get the actual rates. And we will be not reallocating that within the general fund. We will just be reducing the general fund by any savings in that.

Want to talk taxes?

[Speaker 23] (1:02:46 - 1:02:47)
Not really.

[Speaker 2] (1:02:49 - 1:04:14)
So this is just a brief overview of the property tax residential rate history. This is the per 1,000 rate, in case you were wondering why your individual tax bill is not $12. That's per 1,000.

This is just given in. And then I want to thank Patrick Ledy for working with me and double-checking my model on this. So we used the FY25 residential values and applied that information to the projected FY26.

This does not assume any additional stabilization or free cash that would potentially be used in the fall before tax rates have any time. And this is right now modeled at just 2.5% tax levy for 25 new growth, no use of stabilization or access, would have the projected increase to the median single-family tax bill of $416.74. And then I have a separate sheet if you want to walk through additional models of excess where it wasn't a static thing, I didn't want to just put it on the slide.

[Speaker 4] (1:04:15 - 1:04:16)
I'm sorry, did you say which scenario this is?

[Speaker 2] (1:04:16 - 1:04:22)
This would be scenario two. So this is without any use of excess.

[Speaker 5] (1:04:30 - 1:04:33)
Scenario two, one that eliminates an entire department, correct?

[Speaker 2] (1:04:36 - 1:05:02)
And then I will say that at FY25 tax rate setting time, prior to the use of free cash, our median increase was going to be about $383. So this is not far off from where we were in FY25. So in FY25, we were at what number?

It would have been $383 had we not used any free cash.

[Speaker 21] (1:05:11 - 1:05:14)
That makes much more sense. Thank you for clarifying that.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:15 - 1:05:16)
I had the same panic.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:18 - 1:05:19)
It's like, what happened to 151?

[Speaker 4] (1:05:20 - 1:05:21)
Yeah, that's the differential.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:21 - 1:05:39)
Yes, that's right. So, and now we're looking at the average teen, and that's before we even look to stabilize this budget with additional funds. Can we look at?

Let's see what those numbers are.

[Speaker 21] (1:05:39 - 1:05:41)
Can we look at those scenarios, please?

[Speaker 23] (1:05:41 - 1:05:42)
We can.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:49 - 1:06:21)
So this is a, I'm just going to jot that down real quick. So this is, yeah, this is slightly more than the spreadsheet. I know I at least showed a couple of you in the meetings.

So the top half is what you have on that slide. So the 416. Could you make that any larger, Amy?

[Speaker 6] (1:06:21 - 1:06:22)
Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:22 - 1:06:25)
Would you mind? Sorry, I have it on a tiny screen. You guys have it a big time.

[Speaker 4] (1:06:27 - 1:06:29)
She's trying not to scare us with large numbers.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:34 - 1:06:50)
Okay. So, apparently I'm still logged on it on my computer at my desk. So if you want to, any number you want to see.

[Speaker 3] (1:06:51 - 1:07:05)
So right now you're modeling an increase to the levy of half a million dollars, which if we're talking about scenario two would presuppose a half a million dollars of stabilization in theory, right? Because you want it, we're getting to a million.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:05 - 1:07:05)
Scenario three.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:06 - 1:07:09)
I'm sorry, three. Yeah. Because we're getting to a million of offset.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:09 - 1:07:26)
Yeah, if you do half half. So that would be an additional $75.60 on the tax bill. And this is the median or average?

This is the median. This is the median. Yeah.

I wanted to keep it apples to apples with our normal tax rate models.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:27 - 1:07:29)
And what's the, what is our median? What is that, 799?

[Speaker 2] (1:07:30 - 1:07:37)
769,700. It should be on your slide model too. Yeah.

Yes. It is.

[Speaker 3] (1:07:38 - 1:07:38)
Oh, there it is.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:42 - 1:08:23)
So that would, that 75.60 on top of this 416.74 would bring it to the 492. So that's the per thousand increase. So right now our per thousand is 1147.

It would be 1201 with just a two and a half, 425. This additional half million would bring it to 1211, increasing it by an additional 64 cents per thousand. I wanted to have it modeled both ways depending on how you wanted to look at it.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:24 - 1:08:29)
So a million would just double it? Yeah. That gets the 151.20 I think is what.

[Speaker 14] (1:08:29 - 1:08:32)
How about I just have the 750?

[Speaker 23] (1:08:32 - 1:08:33)
Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:08:37 - 1:08:55)
And I just want to emphasize something you said earlier, which is the three sort of ways we got here, or the ways that you've highlighted have been most predominantly the way we got here. Yes. And we expect that we will be here again next year.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:55 - 1:09:16)
We do. Okay. So we are finally updating the forecast model so that when we come back for the March 5th presentation we can also show a lot of the new revenue that we're anticipating in town isn't going to reflect in our receipts until FY28.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:17 - 1:09:32)
So you need to show multiple years because this is very, very serious on how we're going to be dipping into the unused levy, how we're going to be dipping into stabilization, and then how we are going to rebuild our stabilization.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:38 - 1:09:39)
People are going to have to pay more.

[Speaker 3] (1:09:40 - 1:10:16)
Yes. And not just this year, but next year too. I think it's the acknowledgement has to be that we use them all this year just to delay the problem next year.

The impact then next year will be greater, right? Because you won't have as much funds to use. So does it make more sense to use half of stabilization, like use half the stabilization funds we have available, hoping maybe some more falls from free cash, maybe puts them in a position next year to use a little bit more than half of those.

[Speaker 2] (1:10:21 - 1:10:52)
We've also had the idea floated of maybe using full excess levy and that way you still have the full amount of your stabilization there in the fall when you actually see how the tax rate is looking modeled out with the actual current year information. So there are different ways to bite at this. Which is why we're here to try to have that conversation as best we can.

[Speaker 6] (1:10:52 - 1:11:17)
So Ms. Saro, I mean, this is certainly a gloomy gray scenario, but I don't think all is lost. I think we do have growth projects in the pipeline. Can you speak to when we will see those projects come to fruition, hit the tax rolls, and maybe help us grow out of this situation?

[Speaker 2] (1:11:17 - 1:12:02)
I would say our biggest ones are going to be obviously the Hadley Hotel, which right now we're anticipating those receipts to start hitting in fall of 27, which is the beginning part of FY28, as well as the building permits for the new Vennon Square development. We'll start having those come in and then we'll start receiving the property taxes and any revenues from the new commercial buildings that will be there. And I've been in lots of talks with our Community Development Director, Marcy Glasgow, to really try to nail down the timelines of these and realistic projections for them.

[Speaker 5] (1:12:04 - 1:12:05)
Word realistic.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:06 - 1:12:07)
Thank you, Marcy, because I know you're watching.

[Speaker 3] (1:12:08 - 1:12:11)
In your opinion, are we going to be able to grow ourselves out of this problem?

[Speaker 2] (1:12:12 - 1:12:40)
Yes. We are? Yes.

This is not unforeseen. This is all in the forecast to align and we wouldn't have this gap. And obviously that is not the reality that we're in right now, but we always knew that this was going to come.

We all know Sean always had a big push for, we don't need to cut more expenses, we need to grow our revenue. And this is exactly that.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:40 - 1:13:02)
I think using the interest income in the budget, that's behind us now, but that's where we're at. I think the one place where we have a possibility of savings would possibly be in getting a better deal on the employee health insurance that we started looking at.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:03 - 1:13:05)
Maybe we can pool with Lynn. Get a better pool.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:05 - 1:13:07)
Yeah, let's see what their deals are.

[Speaker 4] (1:13:09 - 1:13:11)
Maybe we can make a deal about the UV pilot.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:12 - 1:13:13)
We'll do that tonight.

[Speaker 2] (1:13:15 - 1:13:17)
We'll barter some UV pilot for some health insurance.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:19 - 1:13:24)
What are our next steps, though? Yeah, so let me switch back to...

[Speaker 4] (1:13:29 - 1:14:51)
Before we go there, Marilyn, I just want to really hammer home just how, I mean, I think it's probably evidently clear how severe this is, but we're here, the school committee's not. But this is, I think, a couple, if not several or many of us wanted to really answer the call for the schools this year. And, you know, this puts this all in a vice.

Certainly, I feel that way. And, you know, it's not that the increase that's embedded in here is bad, but compared to what the schools felt they adamantly need, this clearly is not assumed. And we're already talking about a significant increase in people's taxes, right?

Yep. So, you know, we've got these things happening on the town side about the interest, the health insurance, and building permits being down. That affects everybody, collectively.

And, you know, we're talking about scenarios here where we're actually reducing the size. So if we, as you all have, I mean, we know that you see millions in the schools with this type of approach. So this is, you know.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:52 - 1:15:58)
Yeah, I will say this was not an easy task. One, creating five budgets isn't easy anyway. But even just balancing it, the conversations that Gina and I have had to have were incredibly difficult.

We wanted so much to be able to give all of our departments what they asked for, more of what they asked for. And trying to balance that with the fiduciary responsibility to our taxpayers, with trying to keep with, you know, previous promises we've made to the town, and also trying to honor, you know, trying to give as much as we can to the school, we just couldn't, you know, we couldn't give the school the full amount that they asked for while looking at the prospect of closing a town department.

[Speaker 1] (1:16:02 - 1:16:34)
I think what's really important is we need to see multiple years in front of us. One of the mistakes that we've made is not seeing multiple years in front of us and just taking the information for what it was. And this is a serious problem that we have.

So do people want to give their opinions on what scenarios they like, or do you want to wait until the next meeting?

[Speaker 2] (1:16:34 - 1:16:41)
Well, so the next meeting is the town administrator's recommended. Okay. So we do need...

You need our input. We do need the guidance tonight.

[Speaker 5] (1:16:41 - 1:16:55)
I can't even consider it. I don't even know. Right, the first two scenarios.

I'll speak to that. I don't ever be... Has the data been given with the earlier today or to the one-on-one meeting board members?

[Speaker 18] (1:16:55 - 1:16:55)
Okay.

[Speaker 5] (1:16:56 - 1:17:03)
So I know the situation. I just wanted to know if she had anything different in her conversations with them.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:04 - 1:17:07)
I have a question. Were you still going, Danielle?

[Speaker 5] (1:17:07 - 1:17:07)
No, go ahead.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:08 - 1:17:19)
Okay. Between Scenarios 3, 4, and 5, you're just going down one position and yet it's costing 500 or going up one, whatever, $500,000 a position.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:19 - 1:17:21)
It's adjustments in the expenses as well, yeah.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:21 - 1:17:21)
What's that?

[Speaker 2] (1:17:21 - 1:17:23)
It's adjustments in the expenses as well.

[Speaker 4] (1:17:23 - 1:17:44)
So the amount of the non-mandatory expenses varies greatly in those scenarios. So in Scenario 3, can you give us a range? Is it like Scenario 3, it's really more like a million-dollar cut in mandatory.

In Scenario 5, it's more like not much at all, would seem to be.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:46 - 1:17:56)
Did you say in 5 it was a half-million? Mm-hmm. Did you say 5 was a half-million in reduction in mandatory expenses?

Yes. So 5 was a half-million. So what...

[Speaker 1] (1:17:56 - 1:17:58)
Others have to be high for you to...

[Speaker 4] (1:17:58 - 1:18:04)
We're talking about a million non-mandatory... I mean, not... We can't be talking...

[Speaker 2] (1:18:04 - 1:18:32)
Conceptually. Where is this coming from? How are we getting to that?

It's, you know, it's cutting into all the nice tabs. So it's cutting into community programs. It's cutting into staff education.

It's cutting into, you know, even office supplies. There's already a pen in town hall. You don't need another pen.

It's just going through that, bringing them down, you know.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:33 - 1:19:24)
The difficulty with us having to weigh in on this at such a high level, I mean, it makes it difficult when we don't know. I mean, we do because we've had individual conversations, but in this scenario here, like, I'm looking at, you know, Scenario 3 with six positions. I don't know if the six positions are, you know, the chief of police or, you know, something else, right?

So, you know, things like that would matter, right? The actual level of the position, what position we're talking about, how that affects service level. So that's what, you know, as well as the non-mandatory expenses you just spoke to.

So, you know, maybe it's employee development. It's continuing education. Who knows?

But to not see that stuff makes it really difficult to have an opinion.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:24 - 1:19:29)
We have to have the guidance to recommend a budget, and then a budget.

[Speaker 5] (1:19:32 - 1:19:44)
It's different about, you know, the 18,000 residents of a heads-up and, you know, reality check. To have these conversations on the heads-up and really a real, you know, like, to have these conversations is a real challenge.

[Speaker 14] (1:19:45 - 1:19:48)
That scenario is one we're getting on a lot better path.

[Speaker 3] (1:19:48 - 1:20:35)
Absolutely, absolutely. If I could just talk a little bit philosophically about levy versus stabilization and maybe where people are sitting there just to sort of understand. Because I'm not really certain that I understand what the best financial strategy is, because I know that this is going to be a problem.

Financial strategy is because I know that this is going to be a problem next year. So I sort of am like, well, do we save in our savings stabilization count for a rainy day, or do we utilize it all knowing we're going to have this problem next year, but we're offsetting basically a tax cycle, an annual tax bill. It will be lower for a whole year, knowing that next year it's going to be more aggressively impacting.

[Speaker 5] (1:20:35 - 1:20:41)
Yeah. Do you have a recommendation, Amy, on how we go about this or which scenario you would recommend?

[Speaker 2] (1:20:47 - 1:21:43)
I'm still going off the spreadsheet where we had a 0.5 option, and I was like, wait, what? I think what the town administrator and I will do based off what Gino just did, I think we're going to come forward with recommendation four, and then in the presentation we will explain what that half is for. However, the idea of doing 100% levy, and that way you still have all of your levers in the fall when you actually see what that tax rate is going to look like, to be able to address it.

Because I would really hate to use the stabilization now. Take the tool off the table. And then in the fall not really have anything to make those reductions.

[Speaker 3] (1:21:43 - 1:21:47)
What else might we be paying for in the fall that we're not talking about right now?

[Speaker 22] (1:21:48 - 1:21:55)
Anything? No. No?

No, I'm asking. I'm not saying like, ooh, I have something.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:55 - 1:21:55)
No.

[Speaker 22] (1:21:55 - 1:21:56)
Just asking.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:57 - 1:22:01)
We're not paying for that. I am not aware of anything else. Okay, great.

[Speaker 4] (1:22:02 - 1:22:29)
There is another strategy, right, which is that because this is a known dip, I mean we can't be absolutely positive about the hotel or this or that or whatever coming in 2028, but the 9% or the 3% to 5%, those are guidelines. I mean you could dip below because you know that it's a short-term possibility. And so just to make sure that that.

[Speaker 2] (1:22:29 - 1:23:34)
Look at a long-term forecast, how many years we have coming in and how even going into town meeting night, as you all know from looking at the warrant, that revenue estimate is at the beginning. It's not part of the vote. Obviously for transparency we would want to explain to town meeting that the intention is for this money to be coming from risk on the bond rating and how much that may objectively cost us.

So with the rating call we had with S&P as well as the previous ones, they look at our reserves as a whole. They look at our financial policies, which, as I've stated, will be getting updated over the summer to make additional recommendations to maybe refine those guidelines. But inclusive of the reserves, they include the excess levy as part of our reserves because it is money that we can tap into as a town, you know, when it is needed.

[Speaker 3] (1:23:35 - 1:24:06)
Forever problem, we don't, or maybe it's even a slight increase instead of a plateau, but we've been very prudent about not, about being financially wise. And so hopefully we can weather the storm, even with some cuts, but in a responsible way that utilizes the things that we've sort of stored away for this exact issue.

[Speaker 4] (1:24:06 - 1:25:07)
Yeah, I would see the scenario a little bit differently. I would say that your scenario was that you wanted to go to Disneyland and instead of tapping into your savings account, which is a stabilization fund, you decided to tap into your friend's bank account, which is the taxpayer's pocket, in order to make that trip. Because we have the money right now in the stabilization funds that you could say that's what this is for right now, and that's already put aside, right?

But if we decide not to use that and keep the policy at a time when we are in a crunch, when else are you going to use that? Otherwise, it's nice to have it. It's generating interest.

It's great. But this is the time right now to say maybe that's good planning. Stabilization, we have ups, we have downs.

This is one of the downs. As opposed to going over and saying, yeah, we still have our bank account over here, but I actually want to use your money over here to pay for this short-term problem I have.

[Speaker 1] (1:25:07 - 1:25:10)
What's the dollar amount in the stabilization? $6.7 million.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:11 - 1:25:42)
I think Doug makes a really good point because, as I was trying to explain to Diane today, about the difference between excess and stabilization. Stabilization is already taxed money. Swamp debt has already been taxed that, and we are holding it in an account by nature to stabilize in, you know.

As necessary. Yeah. Whereas the excess is not yet taxed.

It is still sitting in your pockets. Very true. That's a good point.

[Speaker 5] (1:25:42 - 1:25:42)
Right.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:43 - 1:25:57)
I will, however, say the stabilization, like free cash, is a one-time influx. Right. It does not do anything to help you next year.

Right. Instead, it actually creates a further hole for you to dig out of the next year.

[Speaker 22] (1:25:57 - 1:25:58)
That's right.

[Speaker 2] (1:25:58 - 1:26:09)
Which is why I was saying I recommend at least like a 50-50 split because otherwise you're just shifting the whole burden of this to next year's residents.

[Speaker 6] (1:26:09 - 1:26:27)
A 50-50 split that does not take us below our guidelines so that way if we were to decide in a future year, next year, what have you, we could then determine if we need to play around with those guidelines.

[Speaker 23] (1:26:28 - 1:26:28)
Yeah.

[Speaker 6] (1:26:29 - 1:26:46)
So I certainly would support using money that has already been taxed. That would be my suggestion, but not below our financial guidelines for fiscal year 26. That gives us some flexibility in the future.

[Speaker 1] (1:26:47 - 1:26:49)
I don't know if that's enough money.

[Speaker 6] (1:26:49 - 1:26:50)
No, no, no. I'm just saying.

[Speaker 21] (1:26:51 - 1:26:52)
You said 50-50.

[Speaker 6] (1:26:52 - 1:26:55)
I would say I wouldn't go below that guideline.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:56 - 1:27:04)
I think David's saying use the approximate $400,000 to bring us down to the 9% of stabilization.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:05 - 1:27:07)
And then there's $200 in free cash.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:07 - 1:27:07)
Yes.

[Speaker 6] (1:27:07 - 1:27:08)
$200 in. Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:08 - 1:27:13)
So that's $600. So whatever it is, $600. So I think.

[Speaker 2] (1:27:13 - 1:27:25)
We do have other free cash requests. If you go back to the school with the $200,000 that they're requesting for the utility. Yes.

So.

[Speaker 1] (1:27:25 - 1:27:37)
We really only have potentially then four. I think we need to see what it's going to look like multiple years. Yeah.

Before we make a decision on. Yeah. Yeah.

On which. Yeah. Which scenario we really use.

[Speaker 3] (1:27:37 - 1:28:49)
Yeah. I just feel like it isn't prudent to spend all of the stabilization fund, even though it is already taxed. Because it puts us at maybe a disadvantage in the potentially in the fall.

To be able to have any. That tool on the table to utilize. Those are.

To reduce the tax burden. Yeah. So to me, it makes sense to leave some of that.

They're not. I'm not saying all of it. I'm not saying just go straight to Levy.

But it makes sense to use. A combination that leaves some of that. On the table so that we can use.

So we have the potential to utilize it. Rather than depleting it, because I do feel like. Easing the tax burden.

Across two years is better. Especially given the financial climate we're in. Then two.

We don't know if this financial climate will be worse next year. Or, or better. And so to tip.

To put it off and make it next year's problem. We could be putting our residents in an even worse situation because. The economy's worse.

And then we need to. Access even greater percentage of the levy. I don't know.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:50 - 1:29:29)
Yeah. And as you all know, when we do the tax rate in the fall. We're already.

Four or five months into that fiscal year. We do have a better. Outlook on how our local receipts are trending.

And we can update those estimates at that time to. Potentially reduce that tax impact as well. When does the insurance bill come in?

We are. We met with our insurance company. Tuesday.

And they are going to have. They're anticipating to have rates to us. By.

Early April.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:30 - 1:29:35)
What's the anticipation increase in that? 12%. That's just on our property.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:35 - 1:29:54)
Property casualty. And. And then.

Mega for workers comp is requesting 7%. Increase from the state. We do, however, have a 0.8 rating. So we were advised that we might only see a 5% increase. Because we have such a low. Operating.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:54 - 1:30:01)
Okay. And then health you're saying is. They're telling.

They're telling you to look at 10.5. Which isn't even the high.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:02 - 1:30:15)
It was 8.5 to 12.5. And at 10.5 aggregate. Which is what we have modeled. And we'll have those rates at the end of March.

So you have that model. But it could go up as high as 12.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:15 - 1:30:15)
What you're saying.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:16 - 1:30:18)
Could go up as high as 12.5. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:19 - 1:30:22)
And I'm sorry. You said that coming in. When is that number coming in?

End of March.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:23 - 1:30:24)
So it's right before open enrollment.

[Speaker 1] (1:30:32 - 1:30:41)
All right. So it's. It's tough to give you an idea.

On what we're looking at. As far as the scenario. Without seeing.

Longer forecasts out there.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:42 - 1:31:02)
It is at least. Good to know that we're. Not looking at scenarios.

One and two. So. Right.

The town administrator. I will. Keep.

Working at this. And. Put together.

His recommended budget for. In anticipation of the next meeting. You guys will.

So you'll see. I charter have.

[Speaker 23] (1:31:02 - 1:31:02)
Okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:31:02 - 1:31:06)
The line item budget. Great. And everything.

Before March 1st. Okay.

[Speaker 26] (1:31:07 - 1:31:14)
I hate to say. We could also eliminate. Scenario five.

Anybody really in favor. Number five. Two million.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:15 - 1:31:16)
I can't.

[Speaker 26] (1:31:16 - 1:31:16)
I can't.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:16 - 1:31:18)
Because I don't know. Really. What's underneath the hood.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:19 - 1:31:20)
We don't know what it looks like.

[Speaker 4] (1:31:20 - 1:31:21)
Right. I see it.

[Speaker 1] (1:31:21 - 1:32:09)
All right. So we're at 345, right? Yeah.

Please. 345. And future forecasts.

Okay. Thank you. Amy.

Okay. So now we can jump to. We.

Move. To the pilot. Now.

Jump to. The pilot. Right.

So at our. Last meeting. We had a number of questions.

That we. We asked for. And.

I think the answer to those questions. Came in. Yesterday.

[Speaker 23] (1:32:09 - 1:32:10)
To.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:11 - 1:32:16)
The people. I didn't. I didn't get them.

My email address. Doesn't.

[Speaker 8] (1:32:18 - 1:32:19)
Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:32:19 - 1:32:30)
Right. Great. So.

We want to start. Discussion on. How people feel about this.

How would you like to start this?

[Speaker 3] (1:32:31 - 1:32:32)
Can I start by making a suggestion?

[Speaker 1] (1:32:33 - 1:32:33)
Yeah. Please.

[Speaker 3] (1:32:35 - 1:33:47)
So. In the past 24 hours. We've probably gotten.

10. 12. Emails.

Going back and forth. About. People in support.

People. Who aren't in support. People.

Who respond. Responding to people. Who are.

In support. And not in support. I can tell you.

That I. Myself. Have not had the chance.

To digest. Everything. That's happened.

In the. In the last 24 hours. I would.

Like. To. Suggest.

That we hold. A joint meeting. With the.

Water. Sewer. Advisory.

Commission. And we have this conversation. Collectively.

With their. Board. In the room.

So we can understand. And the. Kleinfelder.

Representative. And. Gino.

And. You know. Whatever.

Other stakeholders. They want. To bring.

To the table. Or we want. To bring.

To the table. We asked. A ton of questions.

Two weeks ago. As Mary Ellen stated. We only got answers.

In the last. 24 hours. And.

I just have not. Been able to. Review them.

To be honest. Between my. My day job.

And everything else. So. That is my suggestion.

[Speaker 4] (1:33:49 - 1:34:01)
I mean. On one level. Katie.

I appreciate that. On another level. It's very frustrating.

So we just asked. All these people. To sit here.

For two hours. And now. We're not really.

Going to decide. Or have a conversation. About it.

And that just feels.

[Speaker 23] (1:34:01 - 1:34:01)
Like.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:06 - 1:34:06)
And.

[Speaker 23] (1:34:06 - 1:34:07)
And.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:07 - 1:34:15)
Your other comment. Was that we had to wait. Because of the budget.

But. That doesn't really feel like. That's the reason.

That. We're waiting.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:15 - 1:34:18)
Well. I just made a suggestion. It doesn't mean.

That we're going to follow it. I mean.

[Speaker 4] (1:34:18 - 1:34:28)
You all can have a conversation. But to suggest it. I mean.

It just feels like. I mean. You voted to not.

Have a conversation earlier. Because you wanted to wait for the budget. But it doesn't really sound like it's the budget.

So I just.

[Speaker 3] (1:34:29 - 1:34:42)
It's because. I'm making a suggestion. I don't know.

How the rest of the board feels. About my suggestion. I'm happy to.

Have. Tried the best I can. To have the conversation.

It doesn't mean we can't listen. We've already had public comment on it.

[Speaker 1] (1:34:50 - 1:35:42)
So. We have to make decisions. That are in the best interest of Swampscot.

We have to make solid decisions based on information. So if there are select board members here. And I am one of them.

Who doesn't feel they have enough information. Or they haven't been able to go through everything. And look at different scenarios.

That's the. That's the situation that we're in. So it's an honest question.

If people on the board. Want to. Have a bigger meeting.

With the water and sewer. We can have a bigger meeting with the water and sewer. If we want to just discuss it all out here.

I mean the fact that information. Came within 24 hours. That's a little bit of a problem.

That's a serious problem. Really. So.

And. You know I think we just. Just go around the table.

And see where people stand.

[Speaker 6] (1:35:44 - 1:37:25)
I just think we've had numerous items on our agenda. Where we've received information that afternoon. Or that evening.

Or at our meeting. I think for something that is so incredibly important. Such as Kings Beach.

We've talked about this for years. I sat as the chair of this board. And we talked about this.

Each and every meeting. The town administrator gave us an update. Each and every meeting.

We established a water sewer infrastructure advisory committee. That's been in place for a year. To study this for us.

They have. You know. They certainly weren't unanimous.

But they were in support of moving forward here. Our state delegation is in support of moving forward here. You know.

We talked about the budget. But we also talked about. We need to talk about the fact that.

Five million dollars was provided to the city of Lynn. And the town of Swampskate to address this very issue. This hundred year issue of Kings Beach.

And again. We continue to say we need more time. We want to have joint meetings.

The water sewer infrastructure advisory committee has voted. They've spoken. They've made their recommendation to us.

We need to take that information and move forward. The 400,000 dollars that it's going to cost to run this UV pilot. You know.

These are funds that were given. That were provided to us by the state. These aren't.

We're not taking town of Swampskate funds. And putting it here. We're taking 400,000 dollars.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:25 - 1:37:26)
Well I disagree.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:27 - 1:37:30)
Can I finish? And then you can speak.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:30 - 1:37:35)
First if you could just give me one second. If folks could just be quiet. That would be really helpful.

Appreciate it.

[Speaker 2] (1:37:38 - 1:37:39)
Oh okay.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:40 - 1:37:41)
Okay.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:41 - 1:37:41)
So.

[Speaker 1] (1:37:42 - 1:37:42)
I understand.

[Speaker 6] (1:37:42 - 1:39:35)
So look. I mean. We can talk about this today.

We can talk about this again. But at another meeting. It's a continuation of kicking this problem down.

Kicking the can down the street. And we're running into these cans. Like we have an opportunity right now to take care of our infrastructure and figure it out.

And to take this next step. This incremental step. So this UV pilot is in place for our summer beach season.

If it's not in place for our summer beach season, we are not going to have sufficient information to make a decision. We're going to have partial information. We're going to say, oh, why didn't we do this for June 1?

We're going to miss that opportunity. We don't have all the information. We don't know if this is going to work.

We don't have all the answers as to where this is going to be sited. But, again, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good here. Like the time is to take action.

And we have a water sewer infrastructure advisory committee. Some of the hardest working individuals. I just want to commend the chair of that committee, Liz Smith.

And your board, thank you for all the hard work that you've put into this. I don't think there's anybody in the town of Swampskate who's a volunteer who has any you've probably forgotten more than a lot of us will ever know about this. So, again, I don't think this is a perfect plan.

I think it's a good plan. I think we're going to learn a lot. And I think we should advance this.

I think I'll be supporting it whether tonight, tomorrow, or, you know, in a few weeks. That's my position. Thank you.

[Speaker 3] (1:39:36 - 1:40:25)
I think to say that the $400,000 coming out of the earmarked funds is not taking money out of Swampskate taxpayers is sort of a misnomer. Because we're using that funds for IDDE work or relining the pipes. And so we are using that as preventing us from coming to the Swampskate taxpayer and saying we need more money to line pipes.

So there is a repercussion against the citizens of this town if we take that money and instead of lining our pipes, spend it towards this pilot. I'm not saying that's not maybe a good idea. I'm just saying I just don't have the information to determine that that is the best idea for those funds.

[Speaker 4] (1:40:26 - 1:40:49)
Just a point of clarification. Can you ‑‑ does anyone have the actual disbursement for the 2.5 and the different categories there? Way to go, Sarah.

Because I'm not sure that's quite true, Katie, but I don't remember for sure. Because I know we had different allocations for different things in there. And part of it was for the UV.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:49 - 1:41:05)
So the vote that the select board made on November 20th, 23, was the last vote on the 2.5 earmark. It was $100,000 for a peer review study of IDDE and source elimination work, which I've been told is not going to go forward.

[Speaker 4] (1:41:07 - 1:41:08)
That's news to me.

[Speaker 5] (1:41:09 - 1:41:13)
Can you project this? Is there a way to see it, Amy, up on the board?

[Speaker 12] (1:41:29 - 1:41:29)
Larger, please.

[Speaker 2] (1:41:44 - 1:41:59)
$100,000, $200,000 for remaining balance of Kleinfelder complementary strategy, $400,000 for phase 2 IDDE and design, and $1.8 million for phase 2A construction was the vote that was taken.

[Speaker 22] (1:42:03 - 1:42:11)
And why are we not spending the $100,000 on a peer review? Do you know? I thought we weren't.

[Speaker 14] (1:42:11 - 1:42:15)
We haven't, but we haven't yet.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:16 - 1:42:17)
We will be, right?

[Speaker 14] (1:42:17 - 1:42:18)
Potentially, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:19 - 1:42:25)
It's actually our vote. It's your vote. It's our vote, so that $100,000 is still there.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:26 - 1:42:34)
Okay, so that withstanding, we have how much left? We have $1.9? Is this what this is telling me?

We have not spent $1.9 as of the end of January.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:34 - 1:42:41)
It's not $1.9. That's not allocated, Danielle. We allocated the $1.8. We allocated the full $2.5. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:42:41 - 1:42:44)
Right. So $1.9 is not spent yet.

[Speaker 3] (1:42:44 - 1:43:12)
So if we were going to take $400,000 out of this, potentially other than the IDDE design work and the phase 2 construction, which are the biggest buckets, the only other places that we can take money out of this that are not going to end up in SRF loans or other funding that we will need to find to pay for pipes or projects is about $100,000, and that means the peer review is off the table.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:13 - 1:43:14)
Not necessarily.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:15 - 1:43:15)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:15 - 1:43:40)
Because a capital article we had last year, $3.5 million, $1.7 was going to Fisherman's, and $1.8 was going to Phase 2A of Kings Beach. So we had potentially we were going to use $1.8 of this and $1.7 of the other. We were going to have $3.5 million to do that project. Bids came in pretty low. We didn't bid the full project, and that came in at $1.8. So there is money available if needed.

[Speaker 5] (1:43:40 - 1:43:40)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:41 - 1:43:41)
Yeah.

[Speaker 5] (1:43:41 - 1:43:43)
How much money is available? Do we know?

[Speaker 14] (1:43:44 - 1:43:45)
Close to $2 million.

[Speaker 5] (1:43:46 - 1:43:46)
Okay.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:46 - 1:43:49)
But obviously that's going to go to future work as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:49 - 1:43:49)
Right.

[Speaker 14] (1:43:49 - 1:43:51)
But the money is available.

[Speaker 1] (1:43:52 - 1:44:09)
So we also have, what, $187 that we spent out of the enterprise fund that was never appropriated, correct? Never appropriated. It was just spent out of the enterprise fund to do this, the Kleinfelder study.

[Speaker 2] (1:44:10 - 1:44:24)
Study. I do want to clarify. So the $187 was appropriated because it was appropriate costs from the fuel enterprise fund.

The intention of those costs was that they would come out of the sewer enterprise fund?

[Speaker 1] (1:44:24 - 1:44:55)
It was spent out of the sewer enterprise fund, which is I don't really have to see the policies because that was spent out of sewer enterprise, which is supposed to be used for operations, and that was not operational. That was not operational. You can do capital out of the enterprise funds.

Not without an appropriation. You can't spend capital money without even the capital committee approving it. That capital committee never even saw that per our charter.

That's a serious problem.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:55 - 1:48:43)
Just to kind of get us back to this conversation, that seems to me to be a little bit of a separate thing. So I just want to say that I appreciate everybody that's here, and I really think this is monumental, that for 75 or 100 years this problem has existed, and this is probably the first time that Lynn and Swamp Scott have been in the same room, actually sitting down trying to figure out how to solve it. So I'm encouraged by that.

I think that's incredibly positive. To Katie's point, it has been a real bear for me to sit and listen to the chair of the water sewer committee and the vice chair, be it completely opposite ends of the spectrum, on whether or not this thing should be supported. And I rely on people like that because I will admittedly tell you this is not my wheelhouse.

I am not an engineer. This is not something that I do that I have massive working knowledge of. I just don't.

So I am relying on that committee and the members of that committee to give me their feedback and as much information as possible. With the vote that they had, and they did vote to approve it. I think it was 5-3.

After I watched the two hours of that meeting, it was so very contentious to me and so very polarizing opposite what the members of that committee felt that it really gave me a pause. Because for me, I'm trying to evaluate all of this. I'm trying to look at, and I'm telling you, pages and pages of e-mails over the past 24 hours from people against, for, against, for, and you're trying to figure out who to believe.

Who has the best, who makes the most sense? Everybody makes sense because we all want to fix it. That's no question.

I ran for this seat last year and I could have told you that was one of the biggest things I was concerned with, and I still am. But when you hear things that Mr. Spritz brought up tonight, with the generator and the pollution and diesel fuel, little bits like that, just snippets of things that are from people who are fairly well-versed in this stuff, there's just so much to consider. And I think that without giving all of that consideration, and there's a lot of it, it would make me feel like I'm making a rash decision, and that's what I want to avoid doing.

But I don't want to not make a decision, and I want it to be timely because I really do feel like, to David's point, we have kicked this can way far down the road than it needs to be. We have, and we need action, and I don't disagree with that. But I just want to make sure it's the right course of action and we go about it the right way.

That's just like me, my honest feeling, and that's the best that I can say or the easiest way that I can explain it, but if it were really easy, eight, nothing, we're all in favor of this thing, it is absolutely perfect, let's do it, that's one thing. But that's not what we have. There are a number of questions, and I'm, you know, from a scientist who's the vice chair of this committee, right, who's bringing up things that kind of are over my head, to be quite honest with you.

They're just not things that I'm well-versed in. He's making good points, but he's not the only one, right? There are a lot of people in town, Dr. Friedman, Mr. Spritz, Mr. Patsios, that made really, really compelling arguments and gave me pause. One big piece of it is where is it going to go, right? Where is it going to go? Who is it going to affect that lives in this town?

I have to think about that, right? I'm obligated. Not that I'm not obligated to think about Lynn, of course I am, like I said, but there are just a lot of things that are making me pause.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:44 - 1:49:57)
That's just my honest opinion. So one issue that I have is when we talk about it's taken 100 years to deal with this, this is a pilot program that potentially could get the beach open for next summer, for this summer, the summer of 2025. I personally believe that on dry weather, I have no reason not to think that it's not going to work.

I've always thought it's going to work. But my next question is what's next? And for me, it's very important to see what is the plan down the road.

So let's just say it does work. What's the next step? So the next step is, is Lynn and Swanscott going to be prepared to invest millions and millions and millions of dollars into a long-term future plan?

And where would that actually go? And how are we going to subsidize it? We just sat down and talked about our financials, which are pretty tough right now.

But having a long-term plan is my issue.

[Speaker 3] (1:50:00 - 1:51:16)
I even think, even if we don't go to long-term, if we just think about the short-term. Like I brought up last meeting some issues that I, some concerns I have about the neighbors. Mr. Spritz brought up some great points about the diesel that was going to be used. I think I heard in a water sewer advisory committee meeting that there is a potential to bring the voltage of electricity needed to run it on electric, but that the timing wasn't going to work so that it would be open for the summer. But if that mitigates the issues to the neighbors and the amount of pollution that it's going to produce to run the pilot, then it might be worth exploring how long that is going to take, how long we can do before we get there to make that pilot, to ease the pain of that pilot on that neighborhood. I don't understand, because I haven't been given the information, how, like, is it true that National Grid could bring the correct voltage to run those machines to that island that we're hoping to use?

And if so, what's the projection on time? I understand the projection on time is not for summer, but are we talking six months? Are we talking a year?

What is the projection?

[Speaker 22] (1:51:17 - 1:51:20)
Of the 18 months.

[Speaker 4] (1:51:27 - 1:53:42)
So, clearly this is complicated. We have all, it's not like, you know, we didn't just start our education yesterday. We've been, you know, on this path, some of us for a year and a half, more for a few of you.

We just had a conversation and made decisions about the budget that, in a similar way, we've been educated this week and prior, and then we actually got the budget today. We looked at information, and we still were able to give direction to Geno. That was on, going out of count, at $70 or $80 million.

Here we're talking about $400,000. It's not a big surprise. We've known it's $400,000 for a while.

We've known a lot of these issues. We know it's going to block some people's view. We know it's probably going to be noisy and stinky.

And it's not going to open the beach for the summer, okay, just to be clear. We don't know how many more days it's going to open it. I think we all can guess that it's going to be better with it than without it in terms of the beach.

But, you know, hopefully we don't have a very rainy summer, and it's actually open a lot more than it would have been because of this. But whether it's one week from now or three weeks from now, you're still going to have people that have different opinions about this. It's not like magically the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee is going to come to a unanimous vote in three weeks from now.

I think it's clear. Many of us, maybe all of us, deeply respect Dr. Vockley and his perspective on this. I don't think that a week or two from now he could speak for himself if he were here.

He's magically going to have a turnaround about this, right? I think there's at least one member of the committee that voted no before that I understand now has switched to his perspective.

[Speaker 5] (1:53:43 - 1:53:47)
I don't think so. No, that's changed also in the past 24 hours.

[Speaker 1] (1:53:48 - 1:53:55)
I think a member of the committee was calling. If you're saying that, then I think I got a phone call from a member of that committee.

[Speaker 4] (1:53:57 - 1:56:41)
So whether it's six to two or five to three, whatever it is, we have committees. They looked at all the information. They still voted to support it.

We don't always have to take the recommendation of a committee. But it's hard to think whether or not I remember a situation where we actually didn't. So we don't want to undermine the committee, I'm sure.

We've known it's $400,000. It's true that it will take away from the work we could have done. But if we didn't get the $2.5 million to begin with, we would have had to pay for all that ourselves. So the delegation worked to get this money. They didn't know at that point I don't think there was anything about UV. We still are taking a very balanced approach.

We're still putting the vast majority of the money into IDDE. But this is a secondary bet. I'm one of those people that's like, I want to go whole hog about fixing the pipes.

But also it's good to have a little portfolio strategy. Make sure you kind of have a balance just in case. And even I know just fixing the pipes ain't going to get any extra days in the beach this year or next year or the following year.

So I would ask, beg, beseech my colleagues to take this calculated risk. We can put stipulations. We can nuance this.

If anyone wants to penny pinch it. I might have talked about that last time. We want to say that we got to find electricity.

We got to find solar. We got to find, you know, some other way instead of the diesel. Put that criteria on it.

We got to bite the bullet that in the interest of so many people that we're this close, let's think about, is there some compensation we can have for those three neighbors or so that are really going to be impacted by this? Let's work the issues instead of, like, make it an all or nothing. Let's work the issues.

How can we actually kind of round the corner on this?

[Speaker 3] (1:56:42 - 1:57:37)
That's why I was suggesting having a joint meeting. I'm not anti-UV pilot. I'm not.

I just am anti this iteration of UV pilot. I want to understand are there pieces that we can tweak and nuance to make the neighborhood impact less, to understand the levels of success and how they relate to Swampscott versus Lynn, to tweak the pilot to make it in a way. Because I think right now, and correct me if I'm wrong, again, I have not been able to digest the answers that came in, but the data that will come out of the pilot, it won't be segregated between Swampscott's data and Lynn's data.

It will just be the data. But we know that the bacteria levels are not the same, right? So to me, it would maybe, maybe the, I mean, I'm, I'm not, never mind.

Chris?

[Speaker 9] (1:57:37 - 1:57:55)
Sorry. I'm just, I don't get easily frustrated, but I'm really frustrated because I'm hearing concerns across the board, and sorry, Katie, just to defend you, you said Swampscott versus Lynn in your last sentence, which that makes me so sad that we're, that people are,

[Speaker 3] (1:57:57 - 1:58:04)
There's a Swampscott outfall, and there's a Lynn outfall, and there's data that comes from one, and there's data that comes from the other.

[Speaker 9] (1:58:04 - 1:58:44)
Right, and then maybe you didn't get to read my email from earlier this week, but Swampscott has a much higher level of contamination. So in terms of what do we owe to each other, you know, from where I sit, Swampscott owes it to Lynn because we have five different beaches, and 50 years ago, we took the state beach, and now we're polluting Lynn's only beach. So, sorry, I'm getting, but in terms of, we spent so much time over the last eight years, that's when I started at Save the Harbor, to stop the versus.

There was so much finger-pointing and bring people back together, which we did. We had a steering committee, and then I've been hearing these last few select board meetings that the information is not getting to all of you.

[Speaker 5] (1:58:44 - 1:58:44)
It's not.

[Speaker 9] (1:58:44 - 1:59:20)
I don't know why. I mean, the minutes are up on kingsbeachma.com. The stuff I've sent you in the last 48 hours has been available for three years.

Like, this is ongoing, outcoming. I do my best. You know, I cover 19 miles of beaches in my job, but I moved here for this.

And I think, some really good point to make, I think those details need to be worked out, but it's really frustrating to hear the versus language. I mean, we're in this together. The water doesn't care where the swamp's got lining.

It sucks.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:23 - 1:59:25)
But doesn't that affect the solutions?

[Speaker 9] (1:59:26 - 1:59:26)
No.

[Speaker 3] (1:59:27 - 1:59:34)
I mean, we all have to fix our pipes, but I guess these are complementary solutions to pipelining, right?

[Speaker 9] (1:59:37 - 1:59:38)
It's not pipelining.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:38 - 1:59:38)
Good.

[Speaker 9] (1:59:39 - 1:59:40)
Yeah, Swampside has the broken pipes.

[Speaker 1] (1:59:41 - 1:59:43)
Lynn doesn't have broken pipes?

[Speaker 7] (1:59:43 - 2:03:04)
No, it's the illicit connections. Okay. So it's just a different issue.

I so appreciate all the questions, and we have been working so hard for three years to answer everybody's questions and do it together. We sat down in the fall, Chairwoman, it's a pleasure, and talked about how this was going to go in the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee. We got through the Water and Sewer Advisory Committee, did a presentation a couple weeks ago.

I know things are a short turnaround. You got the answers yesterday, and I wish it would have been sooner, but we are under a time crunch. If we're going to get this pilot to run this summer, we need the approval now because we need to procure the rest of the parts, and then the parts need to be installed, and if it's not up and running by June, then it's a waste of money.

I totally understand the impact this is going to have on the neighbors, and I will work as best I can to make this as palatable as possible. I'll go there. I'll talk to them.

I'll say, thank you for putting up with this so we can have a clean beach this summer. It's only three and a half months. If this was a permanent infrastructure project, then I think some of these questions would be a lot more important, but they're going to be gone in September.

I hear you on the money as well. I think that the source of these funds is really, really relevant context, and I think that you have the capacity in the earmark to get this done, and I know folks have asked about the original Kleinfelder study from 2022. That was not my decision.

It was declared to me that this was going to be done and how it was going to be paid for, but in the spirit of collaboration, to get this done, I think that the city of Lynn would be able to add to its share of the UV pilot half of the share of that original Kleinfelder study, which means that the city of Lynn would pay $500,000 for the pilot, and the town of Swan School would pay $300,000. We just saw that you have the capacity for that $300,000 and that $2.5 million earmark. I'm not an engineer either, but we hire experts, and the town of Swan School has been working with Kleinfelder for years.

It's who you have decided that you trust to make these recommendations and who your predecessors decided, and they're great, and I've been honored to work with them. They recommended this. Perfect time.

If you dance, too, then maybe this… They recommended this in 2022, and then they recommended it again in 2025. We asked them, with the support of the town, to do a study that we split with the town of Swanschool to evaluate this, and they recommended it.

They wrote a memo. I know you guys all got it. Those are the experts, and we're happy to hear from everyone, and it's going to improve the final project when we hear from the experts, and the other people that we rely on in the city are the people we hire.

I know we have the support of the Acting Town Administrator and TPW Director, within whose purview this falls. I understand the questions, but I think we can get this done.

[Speaker 1] (2:03:05 - 2:04:29)
I think the question is, for me, it's not about getting this done. This is a small, small object here compared to the big dollars we're looking at down the road, and I think the DPW and the Interim Town Administrator would agree with me that this is not a King's Beach decision or a sewer and water committee issue as much as it is a finance committee. It's a financial issue.

For me, this is about finances. What we're saying is, listen, it could cost X amount of dollars, $25 to $50 million to build this facility. We don't know where we're going to put the facility, and then let's not forget, we still have to line our pipes, and it's going to cost us money to manage this facility.

So we can't pretend like this is just one summer where we have a shot at getting on the beach. This is long term. We're talking the next 20 years.

How are we going to turn around and make – is this town willing to make a commitment to spend that large amount of money? Right now, we're talking about capital improvements to get our middle school up and going. So where do we – where's the balance in there?

[Speaker 7] (2:04:29 - 2:05:13)
Yeah, I mean I totally understand that. That's a big sum of money. I – and no one that I've been working with is going to ask the town of Swanscot to pay for something that's totally not feasible.

No one was expecting us to get that $5 million earmark. We were, I think, very close to getting a $20 million community change grant from the Environmental Protection Agency. Every indication we had was that we were a very strong contender, and Washington changed.

And that happens. But we need to collect the data and build the case for when the next opportunity comes around and there is some kind of capital funding available that we'll be ready to jump on that. And that's why I think we should do the pilot.

[Speaker 4] (2:05:13 - 2:06:26)
Mary Ellen, just – I totally respect that, you know, you hate doing studies that you're not positive will be actually used. You know, I certainly have – I think hopefully that's a fair comment. I've learned that, and I respect that.

To what the mayor just said, this is – you've got to think about this as a feasibility study. It's kind of like – it's the same thing – actually, this is a really interesting parallel. We just, in ARPA, put up $200,000 for the resiliency work, right?

We have no idea how much the actual work's going to cost. But we actually had to invest the $200,000 to figure out really what the scope would be, right? So we didn't – we don't have a perfect plan for that either.

And yet we still kind of put down the marker to say this is a big enough problem that we need more information to find out. I would suggest this is exactly the same parallel here.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:26 - 2:07:13)
With this, we're – we have information on this. We are very clear – excuse me – we're very clear that this project is going to cost us $30, $50 million, $200,000. We are really clear.

We have that information from Kleinfelder. We don't know where we're going to put it. So I'm being asked, are you willing to spend money?

I do believe – I believe that this is going to have good results. I really do believe it. Am I willing to turn around and spend that money when there's no forecast for how we're going to fund it later on?

I think – knowing what we have to do capital-wise, knowing what we have to do with our middle school, knowing what our tax situation looks like, that's where I'm having my issues.

[Speaker 4] (2:07:13 - 2:07:38)
Totally, totally understand. And that's a separate vote, right? But at least at that point we'll have more information by doing this.

And unless we're going to wait for the pipes to be the only thing that fixes this, there is going to be some other massive expenditure. You either pick UV, you pick an outfall, you pick something else, unless, you know, Chris's nanobubbles come up.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:39 - 2:07:51)
Or the oysters or whatever. You know, you and I have had this discussion. You pick the pipes, and you put $25 million into the pipes, and you'll – But then your pick in the beach isn't really going to be dependably open for 10 years, okay?

[Speaker 4] (2:07:51 - 2:07:52)
Minimum.

[Speaker 1] (2:07:52 - 2:08:00)
I don't know. I don't – 15, Gina. All right.

So now – but we go back to what you're saying. Then we say, look, let's do the pipes, all right?

[Speaker 23] (2:08:00 - 2:08:01)
Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 1] (2:08:01 - 2:08:15)
No doubt about that. Let's do the pipes, X, and then let's do the UV, and that's Y. I mean, what are we looking at here?

Part of it is an external funding source. Hold on one second. We're looking at $60 million here?

[Speaker 4] (2:08:15 - 2:08:28)
I mean – That's a choice, though. That's a choice that – we're not making that decision today. You could say we're investing $300,000 now, and if we don't do that other stuff, it's a waste to do the $300,000.

[Speaker 10] (2:08:28 - 2:08:28)
Right, right.

[Speaker 4] (2:08:28 - 2:08:37)
You could say that. I would suggest that's not the right way to look at it because sometimes you have to make that – take that first step.

[Speaker 3] (2:08:37 - 2:08:57)
But are we giving – sorry, were you finished? Are we giving a false start if we are saying, yes, let's go forward and do this pilot if we aren't pre-committing because we know that there will be – Let's hang a big, fat sign on this.

[Speaker 4] (2:08:57 - 2:09:39)
This is a feasibility study, period. No promises, okay? There's so much more that has to be – I think there's a lot of pressure being put on this being more than that.

We will be the ones to decide whether or not this goes forward. No, but are you not just kicking the can because – No, I'm advancing the can instead of, like, not doing anything. Seriously, right?

Because at least now, like, in November, I'm going to have information about what actually went down that I don't have now. And if I don't do this now, then I'm going to be sitting here in November and people are going to be sitting up here talking to me and saying, what have you done? And we'll say, well, we had an option, but we decided we didn't have the perfect information, and so now we're still in the same position.

[Speaker 5] (2:09:40 - 2:09:42)
It's almost as if this is the cost of the data, right?

[Speaker 4] (2:09:43 - 2:09:43)
Exactly.

[Speaker 5] (2:09:43 - 2:10:02)
And this is very much – if I'm hearing what you're saying, Mayor, there's no guarantee that even if the data is perfect and it works – we know it's going to work. It's great. It gives us great results.

It's still not a rubber stamp to say we're going to give you – we're going to go in with $25 million to build this permanent thing. It's just not.

[Speaker 7] (2:10:03 - 2:10:09)
Yeah, absolutely. And in fact, I think we need the data in order to make the case for the $25 million.

[Speaker 3] (2:10:09 - 2:10:12)
Right. To prove that it's only going to cost $25 million.

[Speaker 7] (2:10:12 - 2:10:13)
What's that?

[Speaker 3] (2:10:13 - 2:10:16)
To help prove that it will only cost $25 million.

[Speaker 7] (2:10:16 - 2:12:23)
To prove that it's worth it. I mean, I think it's going to work, but again, I'm not an engineer. That's why we're doing the pilot.

And the feedback we've gotten from the delegation, the state and federal, is that they want to see that we believe in whatever the complementary solution is, and they can help us go fight for the money. But we're saying that we want to do this pilot so that we can back up the belief in that alternative complementary solution. And I am also all in on fixing the pipes, and we're doing that as best we can.

I have asked the regulators over and over again, is there more that we could be doing? Give us feedback on this program. And they have been strongly supportive of the program that we have.

We work with environmental partners, the equivalent of Kleinfelder, and that work is ongoing. In Lynn, it's a different issue than Swampskate. Lynn has these illicit connections that were missed.

So we actually put $100 million in the 90s, 2000s, to separate the sewer system. So we have relatively new pipes, but that's a big project, and this is a dense area. And so there were connections that were missed, or one day someone put the pipe in the wrong place.

And so what our IDD program is, is closed circuit television of all the pipes to try to look for the illicit connections. And we do that. We're doing the entire catchment area, and then we find little issues, and we dye test it, we smoke test it, we field screen it.

We try to identify those issues. But you only find an issue if there's a flow in the moment you shine the camera on it. So that means after we do all 21 areas, we do it again.

And that happens forever. And then the feedback we've gotten from the regulators, including and especially the DEP, is that even once the pipes are fixed, because of the urban runoff, the topography of there being a natural brook running under an incredibly dense area of Massachusetts, that there's still going to be too much contamination for the beach to be open as much as it is. So it's not- You still need a complementary solution.

It's not either or.

[Speaker 23] (2:12:23 - 2:12:24)
It's an and.

[Speaker 7] (2:12:24 - 2:12:31)
And we're not going to get to the end unless we advance the proposal, and this is the way to advance the proposal.

[Speaker 3] (2:12:32 - 2:13:11)
So in what ways, if we are contemplating the proposal, taking a vote on the proposal, in what ways can we mitigate impact to the neighborhood in a significant way? Because for me, I think, again, I've not reviewed this all, but from what I saw, the decibel levels of the generator are a problem. The size of the screens that are needed to reduce the decibels of the generator cause a sightline problem to those neighbors.

What can we do other than run service? Can we do solar? Is there other options?

Can you do a mix of options so that generator's not running 24 hours a day?

[Speaker 7] (2:13:13 - 2:13:49)
I don't think you could do a mix of options. I do think that there's things that we can do to mitigate it. The site design has the generator as far away as possible from houses on the middle strip there between Humphrey Street and Lynch Road Drive.

The sightlines, there's nothing you can do about that. The point of that, I mean, there's equipment there, and then also we want to do the mitigation of the sound and light and all that stuff. So there's going to be views blocked at that level.

I have talked to Beyond Walls who said that they would be interested in helping us out to try to make it more attractive.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:50 - 2:13:52)
What is the light? I'm sorry, I have not.

[Speaker 7] (2:13:53 - 2:13:55)
It's UV light, so there's light.

[Speaker 3] (2:13:56 - 2:13:57)
A tarp.

[Speaker 7] (2:13:58 - 2:14:07)
There's a tarp to block the light so it doesn't shine on the neighbors. So we'll mitigate the light, we'll mitigate the sound to whatever level.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:07 - 2:14:36)
Sorry, Mr. Mayor, but if I understand correctly, the 23 feet is the decibel level that's listed in the specs, but this is going to be a lot further away than 23 feet. Do I have that correct or not? I'm not trying to smoke screen anyone.

100 feet or so, Mr. Mayor? 100 feet. If it's at the 100 feet, does that get below, if we have a noise ordinance, it gets below that level?

Is that correct or not? It's also in Lynn.

[Speaker 3] (2:14:37 - 2:14:39)
The generator's in Lynn?

[Speaker 5] (2:14:44 - 2:14:48)
As far as we get it from those houses that are already getting views blocked.

[Speaker 4] (2:14:49 - 2:15:03)
So for the people in the houses closest to the generators, with the distance, what will their noise experience be? Is it within the swampscot noise acceptable levels? Yes.

Correct.

[Speaker 6] (2:15:09 - 2:15:22)
So I would like to make a motion for the board to approve the Water Sewer Advisory Committee's recommendation for a UV pilot program. Surprisingly, I will second that.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:23 - 2:15:24)
Did you say surprisingly?

[Speaker 4] (2:15:24 - 2:15:25)
Yeah, I was being sarcastic.

[Speaker 1] (2:15:32 - 2:15:37)
So we have a motion on the floor. Is there any more discussion? Do you have anything you want to say, Gina?

[Speaker 5] (2:15:39 - 2:15:40)
Sorry, I'm going to have my back to you.

[Speaker 14] (2:15:40 - 2:16:26)
I guess I can say we already have a partnership with Lynn, whether we like it or not. We send all our wastewater over to Lynn. So this is just a continuing of the pot.

I actually didn't mean that to be funny, but it is a relationship. We've worked on this a long time. I really respect the fact that as an EJ community, which they are, they were going to help us with that grant.

And we were going to benefit $8 million to fix our pipes. And it wasn't a pipe dream, no pun intended. We thought we had a very good chance.

And I already respected that. That's why I want to continue to work with them. And I really respect the fact that you just took $100,000 off it.

[Speaker 5] (2:16:28 - 2:16:30)
I appreciate that also. I also really appreciate that.

[Speaker 4] (2:16:32 - 2:16:36)
This was actually just all choreographed. We're going to keep doing this until we get the price down.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:36 - 2:16:37)
Hi, I'm Bad Cop.

[Speaker 14] (2:16:40 - 2:16:53)
Anybody out here doesn't believe we're going to pay for a $25 million project without the help of the feds or the state. It's inconceivable that we would be paying Lynn or Swampscott in the future without any help.

[Speaker 3] (2:16:54 - 2:18:39)
Yeah, I mean, you know, just to that point, I guess, if we know that we aren't going to be able to contemplate a project this great, post this pilot, without the help of the state and federal partners. And we know the current political climate we're in, right? I understand that everybody's making the point of we need the data to push it along so that when the next opportunity arises, the opportunity doesn't exist as great as it did today, as it did yesterday, but we're hopeful for tomorrow.

I just want to make it very clear, even though we've said it and I've said it, I want to say it again, that going forward with a pilot project does not mean that we fully understand, that we fully have the details, and that we fully are committing to anything, even if the results are positive. I believe the results will be positive in some capacity, whether it's just dry weather, whether it's a very small window of opportunity that we have to open the date to more days at the beach. We're not committing to the results of the pilot.

It's really difficult for me to support the pilot because I think it gives a false hope that we are committing to that. So I just want to make it very clear that if I vote to support the pilot, I am not voting to support anything after the pilot yet, because I just don't have the data to back that. I totally agree.

[Speaker 21] (2:18:39 - 2:18:40)
I understand.

[Speaker 3] (2:18:42 - 2:19:21)
I know Chris used this example at the Water Sewer Advisory Committee. You wouldn't go test drive a Maserati if you could only afford a Camry. Why would you get into that car and ride it around if you couldn't truly afford it?

I'm convinced we can afford this as a permanent solution, but you're saying how will we ever know if we don't get behind the wheel? I mean, I wasn't prepared to get behind a $400,000 wheel. Now it's a $300,000 wheel.

But, I mean, I just wanted to sort of say that information before we formally vote.

[Speaker 5] (2:19:22 - 2:20:45)
I think that's a good point. And I think that, for me, it's almost like, you know, I think it's going to work. I think it's going to yield positive results.

But to even consider $25 million, there's not a bone in my body that thinks there's anything that is going to convince me to invest that type of money with the current financial climate of Swampscott. So, with that said, what really does matter to me was when we put that little spreadsheet up there, that money, to your point, was allocated, you know, that you received, the $5 million from the delegation, the $2.5 million for each side, was really for this purpose. And it is really sitting there, and it is there for use.

So I can't, as much as I have the budget weighing on me and everything else with what's happening in Swampscott, that really was the spirit of those funds. That's what I believe. So that kind of makes the case for me a little bit more that we do owe it to the spirit of that to advance it.

And I am of the mindset that we just cannot do nothing anymore. That is really a frustrating 75-year problem that at some point we have to bite the bullet. It's not palatable for any stretch for any side, but we just can't keep going on like this.

[Speaker 3] (2:20:49 - 2:21:38)
Can I also say that I don't know how this fits into this conversation, if it doesn't just stop me because I don't want to violate open meeting law, but that $100,000 has to get spent on a peer review. Because some of the questions that came up in this conversation, I think, could have been mitigated if we had a third party to understand some of this a little bit better. And I think some of the explosion of conversation around it and the back and forth maybe could have helped been alleviated with a Swampscott-specific party advocating for things it believed in also.

So I just think that we need to focus that priority also.

[Speaker 4] (2:21:38 - 2:21:39)
Yeah, I agree with that.

[Speaker 1] (2:21:41 - 2:22:39)
Well, I think what we have to do is we have to take a vote, and then I think what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to reallocate funds if the vote is in favor. So you two have made the motion and seconded the motion, so I'm going to go on a limb here and say you're a yes. That would be correct.

Katie, do you want to? Yes, I will vote yes. And I am a no because we do not have a thorough plan on where this is going to go and how this will be funded in the future.

And I think that we have a lot of information on how well it would work, but I think that spending this money for a study is just not well-spent money. So that's a four-to-one vote in favor. And the next thing we have to do now is let's take this money here, this allocation, and then how do you want to use that?

[Speaker 2] (2:22:40 - 2:22:41)
Are you pulling it out of the construction?

[Speaker 14] (2:22:41 - 2:22:43)
Yeah, I think they're going to vote on it now.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:43 - 2:22:55)
Yeah, so the motion would be to reallocate $300,000 from the Phase 2a construction of the $2.5 million ARFA to the UV pilot.

[Speaker 4] (2:22:55 - 2:22:56)
So moved.

[Speaker 2] (2:22:56 - 2:22:59)
Wait, hold on a minute. What is it? Taking it from the 2a.

[Speaker 3] (2:23:00 - 2:23:06)
The Phase 2a construction? Can you put that chart back up so we can just see the funds, Amy, if you don't mind?

[Speaker 1] (2:23:06 - 2:23:12)
So is that out of the $1.2 million? It's out of the $1.8 million. I only have $1.2 million.

[Speaker 4] (2:23:13 - 2:23:15)
Folks, we already voted yes. We did.

[Speaker 2] (2:23:19 - 2:23:40)
So we would be reducing the $1.8 million of the Phase 2a? Hold on, hold on. Excuse me.

You don't have the money until the vote's done. You would be reducing the $1.8 million on Phase 2a construction to $1.5 million to allocate $300,000 to the UV pilot.

[Speaker 5] (2:23:42 - 2:23:44)
And so that leaves the peer review in place.

[Speaker 14] (2:23:44 - 2:23:53)
Leave the peer review in place, but Phase 2 IDD and design, it's already been designed. It's 2a. Right, so we can't.

[Speaker 5] (2:23:53 - 2:24:01)
Semantics, you could take the $1.4 million. But it's coming from one of those two areas. 2 or 2a.

And leaves the peer review in place, Katie.

[Speaker 3] (2:24:01 - 2:24:09)
And can you just explain again, Gino, the bidding and how far it came under? And we think there is a cost savings here anyways.

[Speaker 14] (2:24:10 - 2:24:20)
There is. The engineer's estimate for Phase 2a was $2.3 million and it came in at $1.8. So that's half a million.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:20 - 2:24:35)
Half a million that we can add into lining these pipes. Could. Okay.

So that's the motion? That's the motion. Second?

Second. All in favor?

[Speaker 23] (2:24:35 - 2:24:35)
Aye.

[Speaker 1] (2:24:36 - 2:24:48)
Okay. Moving on to our next agenda item, we have discussion. I'm going to jump up here.

Discussion regarding the Hawthorne Reuse Committee.

[Speaker 3] (2:24:50 - 2:24:52)
Y'all are welcome to stay.

[Speaker 2] (2:24:57 - 2:24:59)
Thanks for the finance presentation.

[Speaker 26] (2:25:03 - 2:25:05)
Thank you for coming.

[Speaker 23] (2:25:05 - 2:25:07)
Thank you. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:25:13 - 2:25:43)
All right. So we have our list there. Where is this list?

Here it is. All right. So it looks like if you look at this list, we've got absolutes on.

Hold on a second. Let me just let these people off. Yeah.

Hi. We still have a meeting.

[Speaker 6] (2:25:45 - 2:25:46)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (2:26:00 - 2:26:34)
Thank you. Okay. So we have here three votes for John Bond.

Looks like John Bond, George Bionis, Joe Markarian. Let's look here. James Smith and Brian Watson.

Those are the biggest vote getters. So far, that's five. So we're looking for eight seats here.

Right. That's right.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:35 - 2:26:47)
Was there some. How did we. I couldn't remember when I was doing this.

Was it just like a desire for an engineer, an architect and this, that, and the other thing? Not a requirement.

[Speaker 5] (2:26:47 - 2:26:48)
It wasn't a requirement.

[Speaker 4] (2:26:48 - 2:26:52)
What were the categories? Was that it?

[Speaker 1] (2:26:55 - 2:27:06)
The categories were architects, possibly landscape architect, any type of a planner, and then just general citizens.

[Speaker 4] (2:27:07 - 2:27:07)
Okay. That was it?

[Speaker 1] (2:27:07 - 2:27:16)
Yeah. Okay. So, Katie, did you use all your votes?

I did not.

[Speaker 3] (2:27:16 - 2:27:43)
How many do you have left? I have a vote left because I try to come to the table with an open mind. And to be honest, I thought we were going to have a conversation.

I didn't think it would just be like, okay, add up the number of votes we had. And so I was open to be swayed or convinced that somebody else's choice is a great choice. It's how I try to approach all my votes here.

[Speaker 5] (2:27:45 - 2:28:07)
Well, I would make the case for Cassidy Driscoll, personally. That's just me. Do you have a vote there?

Oh, I have it right next to me. Sorry. If we're making cases.

I don't know that we are, but we already have five, so we can say we have five. We have the top five here. Right.

Now we've got a bunch of people with two votes, so maybe we talk about the people with two votes. I don't know.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:08 - 2:28:10)
I think that would make sense.

[Speaker 5] (2:28:10 - 2:28:12)
We have a lot of gentlemen on here.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:12 - 2:28:19)
Yeah, and if we're making cases, I would certainly make a case for Tom Bellhumer.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:22 - 2:28:24)
Bellhumer? I thought he had more than that.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:25 - 2:28:26)
No. Or Thomas Bellhumer.

[Speaker 1] (2:28:26 - 2:28:27)
He has two.

[Speaker 6] (2:28:27 - 2:29:01)
He has two. He is a real estate developer. He does own a number of properties in Swampskid, as well as around the North Shore.

He is somebody who can focus on revenue generation, which I know is important to some of the members of the board. He's a previous—I believe he was the president of the Swampscot Rotary, and I think he's somebody who has— David, I can stop you right there, because I'll move my vote for Andrea Moore to him, and then I'll give him three. Excellent.

[Speaker 5] (2:29:02 - 2:29:05)
So, don't mean to interrupt you, but just— No, all good.

[Speaker 24] (2:29:05 - 2:29:05)
Thank you.

[Speaker 5] (2:29:06 - 2:29:11)
Because I think I meant to vote for him. I'm not quite sure how I didn't, because I remember that name.

[Speaker 3] (2:29:11 - 2:29:24)
Well, if we're going to try to convince people to move some votes, I would love to try to convince somebody to move a vote to Leah, who is a younger volunteer.

[Speaker 1] (2:29:24 - 2:29:29)
Leah is a Swampscot High School graduate of 2021.

[Speaker 3] (2:29:29 - 2:30:12)
Right, and is looking to get involved. I just think having a young perspective is amazing. To have somebody invested this early on in a process like this is important, and when I see things like that, I want to help nurture those feelings, because someday they could be sitting in these seats.

So, I really—when I saw her commitment to what she has done so far, and what she hopes to do for this town, I really felt like it's important to give her a chance.

[Speaker 6] (2:30:13 - 2:30:24)
I agree, and I'm happy to give—I'm happy to strike my vote for Barden and move it to Leah.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:25 - 2:30:30)
Okay. Is that all you need? You don't need another one, right?

Is that three? No, that's three, so that's good.

[Speaker 22] (2:30:30 - 2:30:31)
Okay, so that brings us to seven.

[Speaker 5] (2:30:31 - 2:30:34)
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. One more. One more.

[Speaker 4] (2:30:34 - 2:31:17)
I'd like to, especially with the apparent disparity in gender balance that we right now have— Doug, thank you. I'd like to make an extremely strong case for Gail Rosenberg. I don't even know who she is, but I don't know if you remember her resume, or I'd ask you to take a look at it.

She has a lot of experience with kind of large projects. I think she works for the state, so has governmental experience in making large projects happen. I have no idea.

I'd be actually dreaming that she might even be able to have some connections and thinking about how projects might be funded, but that would be my suggestion.

[Speaker 5] (2:31:18 - 2:31:41)
Not to compete with you, Doug, but I would have the same recommendation for Tara Driscoll, so I don't know if any—from a gender perspective, that would be my choice. I'm happy to move my vote from Brian Watson. No offense, Brian Watson.

You already have four, so you're in a good spot. To Tara Driscoll, if that would help her get three, that would be my intent.

[Speaker 4] (2:31:45 - 2:31:46)
But you already voted for Tara Driscoll.

[Speaker 5] (2:31:47 - 2:31:52)
Oh, then I can't. Are we doubling up?

[Speaker 3] (2:31:52 - 2:32:07)
I would strongly advocate for someone else that could. Sorry. Yeah, I'll move my vote from Wendy to Tara, and that will bring her to three.

All right, so does that give us a— Or use my last vote to vote for Tara. I don't even have to move a vote.

[Speaker 23] (2:32:07 - 2:32:07)
There you go.

[Speaker 3] (2:32:08 - 2:32:09)
Does that bring us to eight? That brings us to eight.

[Speaker 1] (2:32:09 - 2:33:26)
That brings us to eight. You know, I do want to just—so we have eight, but I do want to point out, I did speak to a gentleman who has just moved here recently. He owns property behind—over on Blaney Street.

His name was John Pell, and he has a very strong background in communications. And, you know, I'm going to ask Diane to send people letters, everybody, to ask them if they would participate and join these committees, just participate in the room, at least be there to get off. But I did take a chance—I did speak to almost every person on this list.

Some people returned a call, some people didn't. There's only one or two I didn't call because I know them personally. I've served on committees with them, so I knew their strengths.

But they were all really great people, and the only people—I mean, I pretty much— I pretty much had almost everybody on my list, unless they said they were just strictly for one thing or strictly for another. I always kept it open for balance. I think this is a good makeup, and we'll have Margie get in touch with everybody and start setting up a good committee.

Diane, do you have the list of eight?

[Speaker 6] (2:33:27 - 2:33:29)
So we have to make a motion.

[Speaker 3] (2:33:29 - 2:34:09)
So I'll make a motion to approve. So let's go for the names. We have R.

Thomas Bellhumer, B-E-L-H-U-M-E-U-R, John Bond, George Briones, Jr., Tara Cassidy Driscoll, Joe Markarian, Leah Pashkova, P-A-S-H-K-O-V-A, James Smith, and Brian Watson. To approve them for the Hawthorne Reuse Committee. Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:09 - 2:34:10)
All in favor?

[Speaker 6] (2:34:10 - 2:34:10)
Aye.

[Speaker 22] (2:34:12 - 2:34:17)
Do we have to give them term? What? We have to give them terms.

No. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:19 - 2:34:26)
It's a task force. Oh, right. Why don't we call it that?

All right, so now we have what else is up?

[Speaker 4] (2:34:26 - 2:34:41)
Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. I understand if we don't want to go on with this right now, but if we don't do it now, we should have it on our next agenda. We need to be refreshed, or I need to be refreshed on, do we frame up their tasks sufficiently?

I know we discussed that.

[Speaker 5] (2:34:42 - 2:34:43)
We definitely have to.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:44 - 2:34:51)
We did have this debate about timing. I remember we had that debate with Mr. Watson, actually, about the amount of time and stuff like that.

[Speaker 5] (2:34:51 - 2:34:54)
What they're charged with and what their goal is. Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 4] (2:34:54 - 2:34:56)
Maybe Diane can circulate.

[Speaker 1] (2:34:57 - 2:35:51)
Or whatever. What Margie outlined. What we voted on before.

Get really clear and send it out to us in our next meeting. So if Margie sends this out, if people could just give her back some input on what it should be. Okay.

Now let's go to open and close of the warrant for special town meeting. The dates that the school has, the school said that they would have dates on the 18th and 19th. We need to get this done before the 20th.

The 20th is our last day. The question is, what, 18th or 19th? Does that matter to anybody here?

[Speaker 4] (2:35:51 - 2:35:54)
Yes. Wasn't there a 10th option, too?

[Speaker 1] (2:35:55 - 2:35:59)
I never floated a 10th option. I'm not going to be around on the 10th.

[Speaker 23] (2:35:59 - 2:36:03)
Yes. I think we have the 10th and the 18th reserved.

[Speaker 3] (2:36:03 - 2:36:06)
I have a conflict on the 10th, the evening of the 10th. Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:36:07 - 2:36:09)
I will be out of town on the 18th.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:09 - 2:36:10)
So you'd be here on the 19th?

[Speaker 4] (2:36:11 - 2:36:12)
The 19th I could be here.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:13 - 2:36:20)
Okay. So it looks like the 19th will be it. And that's actually a regular scheduled meeting for us.

[Speaker 4] (2:36:21 - 2:36:25)
This will be a short discussion, I bet, for the special town meeting. So we could probably have our meeting right after.

[Speaker 1] (2:36:26 - 2:36:40)
Okay. We could do that. But the other question is, so we have the article from the petition that will be in there, but I also want to discuss where we're at with the CPA.

Yes.

[Speaker 4] (2:36:43 - 2:37:45)
So there's been a little discussion amongst some of the people that kind of helped pull that together, just to get a little bit of feedback from them. I think, I mean, I don't have a full complement of thoughts from the people on that yet, which doesn't necessarily mean we can't discuss it now or next time or whatever it is. But, you know, what I share with Diane is I didn't feel like this was, like, a super urgent thing.

We don't even have the full text from KP Law. And, you know, we needed just a refresher, seat this committee, and then, you know, they would have to start doing their study, and then we have to change the tax rate, and then the funds don't kind of show up until, like, you know, over a year from now. So it's not like today or special time meeting or May time meeting makes any difference in terms of anything for a long time.

[Speaker 1] (2:37:46 - 2:38:07)
My concern is we're kicking this can down the road. And the reason I bring this up is because if we're able to use this meeting, if we're able to get the bylaw in, then that means at the annual town meeting we're able to do the next step. That's what Margie has explained to me.

[Speaker 25] (2:38:08 - 2:38:16)
The next step is changing the tax rate. So that doesn't happen until December.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:16 - 2:38:20)
Don't we have to name the committee? Don't we have to do a bylaw, and then after the bylaw we have to name the committee?

[Speaker 4] (2:38:21 - 2:38:32)
Well, we do the bylaw, and yes, then each one of the committees that is represented there, OpenSpace, ConCom, et cetera, they would have to nominate their designee.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:32 - 2:38:34)
But then there are other.

[Speaker 4] (2:38:34 - 2:38:39)
That doesn't have any impact on, like, when the finance change, when the tax rate change happens.

[Speaker 1] (2:38:39 - 2:38:59)
No, but as far as setting up the committee, as far as don't we have to escalate it now or it just drags it out even longer? Am I just getting different? I'm getting different information.

Is Margie here? Is she online? Is that her?

Can she answer? MG. Is that you, Margie?

Margie, are you online?

[Speaker 2] (2:39:02 - 2:39:04)
There she is.

[Speaker 5] (2:39:04 - 2:39:06)
We just have to take her off mute.

[Speaker 24] (2:40:04 - 2:40:36)
If I'm trying to find a communication right now, if I can. There's only one time you go to town meeting.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:36 - 2:40:37)
Right.

[Speaker 4] (2:40:37 - 2:40:37)
The bylaw.

[Speaker 2] (2:40:37 - 2:40:42)
We just need to have it before. The CPC does go before town meeting when they recommend.

[Speaker 1] (2:40:42 - 2:40:53)
They recommend, but that's not. When they recommend the. That's a year from now.

That's. Down the road. Well after they're formed.

All right. Can you just make sure tomorrow that you and Margie are in line with that?

[Speaker 3] (2:40:58 - 2:41:05)
So to be clear, there is no detriment if this is on March special town meeting or May town meeting. There's no detriment to us.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:06 - 2:41:16)
That's why I just want to make sure we're clear on that. All right. Next.

So do we have to open and close the warrant? Yes. So can we have a motion to open?

[Speaker 5] (2:41:17 - 2:41:19)
Motion. Motion to open the warrant.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:20 - 2:41:28)
Second. All in favor. Aye.

Motion to close the warrant. Motion to close the warrant. Aye.

All in favor. Aye. Motion carries.

[Speaker 3] (2:41:30 - 2:41:33)
Oh, has somebody checked with the moderator? They're available. He's available.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:33 - 2:41:44)
We can email him. If we can. I will email him tonight.

And if he's not available, there are laws set up that he can appoint somebody. Actually, I think town meeting would appoint somebody.

[Speaker 21] (2:41:46 - 2:41:48)
Let's just confirm.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:49 - 2:41:49)
Diane just emailed him.

[Speaker 3] (2:41:51 - 2:41:51)
Thanks, Diane.

[Speaker 1] (2:41:52 - 2:42:41)
All right. So now to the tent agenda. Oh, no, TA report.

What do you think? Can you email that TA report? Be more than happy to.

All right. Now can we have a motion for the consent agenda? Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Take out on the consent agenda, just remove item number one. Item number one because we need to get the names and we need to fill that vacancy. Okay.

Okay. We're going to move this for two weeks.

[Speaker 4] (2:42:42 - 2:42:48)
Okay. Diane, his minutes still have the vote being three to zero.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:48 - 2:42:50)
Oh, that's my bad. I did change it.

[Speaker 23] (2:42:51 - 2:42:51)
I'm sorry.

[Speaker 1] (2:42:54 - 2:43:02)
You want to? We're just tabling the minutes. Let's table the minutes until the next meeting.

All right. Select board time. Doug?

[Speaker 4] (2:43:04 - 2:43:05)
I'm all set. Thanks.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:05 - 2:43:05)
David?

[Speaker 4] (2:43:06 - 2:43:06)
I'm all set.

[Speaker 1] (2:43:07 - 2:43:08)
Katie?

[Speaker 3] (2:43:10 - 2:44:04)
I would like to acknowledge and commend the board for this evening coming with a difference of opinion, remaining respectful, responsive, open-minded, listening, and coming to understanding. It's not something we see all the time in outside life, even has been getting increasingly difficult. So I just want to acknowledge that and sort of iterate that we all can be rational players.

And I respect that we all are rational players and can continue to move in that sphere.

[Speaker 5] (2:44:07 - 2:44:38)
Danielle? I just want to offer my condolences to the Geron family and Casey Geron Rogers and the passing of Swampscot legend Dick Geron. He's the son of Swampscot.

He was a Swampscot athlete, professional football player and coach, and a big part of the fabric of the athletic arm of this community. And it was a very significant, unexpected loss. So my condolences to the Geron family.

That's all I have.

[Speaker 2] (2:44:41 - 2:44:45)
Before you adjourn, can I have a motion to affix your electronic signatures to the warrant?

[Speaker 1] (2:44:46 - 2:44:55)
So moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Thank you so much. And I'm good.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

[Speaker 5] (2:44:55 - 2:44:56)
Motion to adjourn.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:56 - 2:44:56)
Second?

[Speaker 5] (2:44:57 - 2:44:57)
Second.

[Speaker 1] (2:44:57 - 2:44:59)
All in favor? Aye. Thank you.

All right.