[00:00:05] Okay, welcome to the Tuesday, September 8th select board meeting. If we would uh we're being recorded. If we rise for the pledge. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
[00:00:20] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We'll begin this evening with the town administrators report. >> Good evening. Thank you. Uh I pretty
[00:00:37] brief tonight since I think that we were together five or six business days ago the last time. So uh first I wanted to give an update on the MSBA statement of interest that we submitted along with the school committee last year or last fiscal year in the spring. Uh we had a
[00:00:53] visit with the MSBA staff last week. Uh which means we had made the first cut for the statement of interest. Um it was a very informative discussion. We had a sort of sitdown session around the table and then walked around middle school answering questions. We have a couple of
[00:01:08] follow-ups that we're putting together for them. Um but we're excited that we had made this initial cut and we're we're having the staff level review. They will make recommendations to the MSBA board uh in early December. So we're looking forward to hearing more about that. Uh second second piece of news I wanted to share and I think some
[00:01:24] folks have already seen this. Uh EOHLC uh announced last Thursday funding for a number of affordable housing projects across the state and thankfully uh we were able to celebrate along with BBH that the funding for the project um at Veterans Crossing was approved. It's an
[00:01:40] important first step uh in moving forward with the state. We're excited for the milestone, but there's plenty of work ahead. So we'll continue to share updates as they're warranted. Um, third, probably the only news news I'm sharing with it with folks is uh in working with the recck department, we are going to be
[00:01:57] building off the success of the World Cup on the town lawn uh town hall lawn by piloting a limited number of Patriots games this fall. Uh we were able to work out the licensing over the last few weeks. We're working on the scheduling right now. It will not be every game. um
[00:02:13] probably you know two three or four this year if that just to see if it's an idea that will work see how cold it is see how everyone reacts to it but um it was such a big success with the World Cup games that we wanted to see if this is something we could explore and thank you to Charlotte and Christina for running down the licensing on that so that's
[00:02:29] exciting there'll be more news on that as the details are finalized um and finally just want to share a reminder that the 911 remembrance ceremony will be held on Friday uh starting promptly at 9:55 at the fire headquarters. If anyone's available to attend, we would
[00:02:44] love to have you join us. Um, and that program will run about 45 minutes. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions you all may have. >> Thank you, Nick. >> So, the Can you hear me? >> Just speak loud. >> Okay. Um, does the MSBA um MSBA
[00:03:05] discussion that you're having was that if I remember correctly from earlier this year that was to be inclusive of both a uh rehab as well as a reconstruct. Correct. Just want to make sure that's still >> part of >> Yeah, it's renovation or rebuild. That's something that they we would work with
[00:03:21] any designer if we were to move forward um to figure out what the best option is. But we looked at it from sort of both angles as part of the discussion as a statement of interest indicated we'd be open to either with the location staying the same. >> Okay. >> Anyone else?
[00:03:37] >> Could you just remind us what the in a perfect world which obviously never happens. Timeline is for when a when you do these walkthroughs with MSBA if we are accepted under every you know round here. >> Yep. >> What that timeline is because I know it's rather extensive.
[00:03:53] >> Six to seven years most likely. >> Yeah. It's five to seven, but not many projects are right done in five. So, it's really a six to seven year. >> And that's for financing to come through before construction. >> That's the whole that's the whole thing. Yeah. >> And there's a number of steps throughout
[00:04:09] where you know, we would have money for the feasibility study and design um you know, >> in advance of the next step. And then we get, you know, there sort of, the way we described it last spring was um there's a number of on-ramps and off-ramps
[00:04:24] throughout the process where we ask the community to take a really active role whether in voting or in weighing in on different steps in the process. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Um I have a question on the veterans housing. Mhm. >> So now that we've we're in the first
[00:04:40] round and um Kim Martin Epipstein actually commented on it that it's very rare to be able to get that much funding and support in the first round which says a lot about our community and about the project. I think that we need to work as quickly as possible to start
[00:04:56] identifying our process on how we're going to help the community. And um I'm going to give you a call and talk about a couple ways and I think where there is some extra money in case we need money to send out mailers and flyers or things like that. I know that the town um we
[00:05:11] give $2,000 a month over to the VFW right now to support veterans and I think that'd be a good way going forward to use that money to help get the word out to market it and identify it and >> as we move to towards occupancy. >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. So, and then also, you
[00:05:28] know, getting a process in which we put together a committee that's going to start, you know, working really hard on we have over 400 veterans in in town. So, you know, in town and then also in Lynn, people who have lived here or in Salem that have lived here that would still qualify. And I just want to make
[00:05:45] sure we get that ball rolling. And then the other thing I just want to comment on last week's meeting. Um when Patrick came, Patrick came and gave us the update on uh the shortfall on the overlay and on the um the fund the
[00:06:01] additional care funding. And I have to tell you, it really it bothered me. It It's bothered me quite a bit because for two reasons. One is we never heard a word about it, not one word until last week. And I just think that that's that we can never that can't happen. We have
[00:06:17] to the select board and the finance committee need to be given updates on what's going on. The fact that over $200,000 is not being covered by the federal government. And I know that there was a lot of comments that those are, you know, if we were to have
[00:06:34] a class action lawsuit, it would be a lot of legal fees. But I do want to look into that with other communities. And I do want to get, you know, Senator Marky to comment on how is it possible because during that whole process, we had our finance director and our town
[00:06:49] administrator was was constantly reporting back to us and working very hard to spend that money correctly and going over it over it and over it. And to now be told that it's not being covered by the federal government, I I just can't take that as, oh, okay, we'll
[00:07:05] we'll take it. I think one I would like to see the select board be sent all the information that was sent to us. Um what is it we didn't why is it they're saying we don't qualify. What were the rules? Because all we did was made sure that testing was available. And if they're
[00:07:24] saying, "Oh, we're not going to cover you for testing." I I really need to have a better understanding of why we're not being tested, why we why we're not being covered for testing. And then um on the overlay I the overlay I'll talk to Patrick so I can get a better
[00:07:40] understanding of the overlay but still the overlay seems a little odd to me that we had that much of an overlay when all the tax bills haven't been processed in the given year. So I just I want to get a better understanding of that. But the most important thing is I don't I
[00:07:56] don't want to get blindsided again last minute. So, if you could just put a note that if there's something outstanding on a balance sheet, let us know right away. >> We'll do. >> Thank you. >> Sure. >> Okay. We will move on to public comment.
[00:08:12] Uh public comment is three minutes and we are going to use this microphone here because there is no micro. Oh, we're going to move that microphone to the stand. Okay. Maybe you could just hand that microphone to Mr. Dementoto for now so that he doesn't have to make the journey. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate
[00:08:29] that. >> Does this come out? >> Thank you. >> Good evening, Bill Dementoto, 108 Paradise Road. I am here to
[00:08:47] celebrate the funding of the veterans project which is close to everyone who was concerned about affordable housing in the town of Swamskitt.
[00:09:03] This is the biggest project since 1971 when Darity Circle was approved for housing. The biggest since then and it's only the biggest because it's
[00:09:19] the second other than the 38 unit Michon school. It is something to celebrate and I didn't didn't want to miss it. So much so that I know uh I heard just heard Mary Allen say
[00:09:35] there should be a committee to try to identify uh veterans who might be eligible. And I want this board to know that I am going to form an ad hoc veterans committee of five people to seek out
[00:09:52] with the veterans agent every veteran in this town to find out what their status is and to see if they are eligible. And I'm I'm thrilled that there's 41 units that for
[00:10:08] the first time I believe will actually be built. The naysayers will complain. They always do. But thanks to the three members of the board
[00:10:26] who were involved in the granting and the two new members and a new town administrator and a new town planner, I think this is going to happen. So, thank you.
[00:10:42] >> Thank you. Additional public comment. Okay, I have uh seeing none, I will move on to one that was emailed and this is from uh Mr. James Andrews uh
[00:11:00] 133 Stson Avenue. Uh there are some links he gives which will be incorporated into the minutes. So if you'd like to um see them, please check out our minutes for at the next meeting. Uh, dear select board, I'm unable to attend public comment this evening, but would appreciate the following be made
[00:11:15] part of the public record. On August 27th board meeting, at on the August 27th board meeting, Captain Cable presented a proposal that would change parking. During this presentation, he repeatedly repeatedly referenced the Wescot property and this was subsequently described by a board member
[00:11:32] as not being a transit property. Per mass housing financing minutes on 8823, the financing for this development was approved on the basis of a transit oriented development within walking distance.3 miles point sorry 0.3 miles of Swampscott MBTA commuter rail station
[00:11:48] as well as being served by the MBTA bus service alongside Essex Street. Uh the developer own study indicated that the initial proposal had a 75% shortfall in the number of required on-site parking spaces per Swampscott zoning regulations. According to the TIA, there
[00:12:04] are 109 parking spaces proposed for the 128 multif family housing units, which is calculated to be 0.85 parking spaces per unit. God bless you. A strict interpretation of the zoning requirements would require 192 spaces based on current zoning requirements provides the link. Considerable effort
[00:12:21] was made by the town and impacted residents and the developer in 21 and 22 to negotiate a reduction in the impact of this development. Concessions on both sides ended up with a parking agreement and a plan that outlined the following. Reduction from 120 to 114 units.
[00:12:36] Increased on-site parking from 109 to 130. Increased ratio parking became 1.08 spaces per unit instead of 085 spaces per unit. Easement plan to connect Pitman to rail trail transit infrastructure. As a resident, I am
[00:12:52] concerned that after two years of opening, the town has already appeared to be backtracking on this agreement. Based on the swamp scout's own zoning requirements, the failure to maintain this agreement would lead to an additional 60 to 70 vehicles competing for parking on the over congested area of town. I'm also concerned that if town
[00:13:09] is incapable of managing the provisions under which uh I am also concerned that if the town is incapable of managing the provisions under which a controversial property such as the WCOT was permitted, then I question whether residents should trust anything the town says regarding other reszoning proposals or future
[00:13:25] developments. James Andrews. So his links will be um available in the minutes and we will move on to um the new and old business. Actually we
[00:13:41] I would like to consider given the time to just bump the consent agenda because we do have one individual who is on the consent agenda who's here, Kelly Russo. So, if it would be okay to take the consent agenda now so that we can allow Kelly to enjoy her evening without us if
[00:13:57] she so chooses. Um, so the consent agenda includes the minutes, the entertainment license for Pomona, Miss Russo, and um Kristen Lewis uh to climate action and resiliency. So, I will take a motion.
[00:14:13] >> Motion to approve. >> Can I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Hold on. I have a discussion. >> Oh, go ahead. So, I just I was going to pull the appointment of Kelly Russo only because I didn't really think that having the appointment of Kelly Russo should be just in a consent agenda. Um,
[00:14:28] and the reason I say that is I know Kelly Russo and she is an incredible hardworking volunteer for this community and we are so lucky to have you. So, I didn't think that you should just be in the consent agenda, but Sintella, you do have to get going. Um, I I think it's
[00:14:44] we're really lucky to have you. >> Thank you so much. Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. All in favor? >> I I >> All right. So, we will now move on to new and old business. Thank you, Kelly, for joining us. >> Thank you so much. >> And thank you for your time.
[00:15:00] >> Thank you all for >> Thank you. >> All right. We will move on to two proclamations this evening. Um September is National Suicide Prevention Month and the select board makes the
[00:15:16] following proclamation. Whereas September is recognized as National Suicide Prevention Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness of mental health resources and suicide prevention services available within our communities. This observation provides an opportunity to encourage conversation
[00:15:31] about mental health and the impact of suicide, reduce stigma, and the help to connect individuals and families with appropriate support and resources. And whereas suicide remains a significant public health concern that affects individuals of all ages and backgrounds, as well as their friends, families,
[00:15:46] co-workers, neighbors, and communities. And whereas the town of Swampscott recognizes that every life lost to suicide has a profound and lasting impact on family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and the greater community. And whereas the town of Swampscott proudly supports those who
[00:16:01] work each day in the fields of mental health, education, public safety, health care, and community service to provide prevention, intervention, treatment, education, and support to individuals and families. And whereas national and local mental health organizations and
[00:16:16] community partners serve on the front lines of suicide prevention and mental health advocacy, working to ensure that individuals know they are not alone and that help and support are available. And whereas stigma surrounding suicide and mental health challenges can prevent individuals from seeking the support
[00:16:33] they need, making open conversation, education, compassion, and awareness essential components of suicide prevention. And whereas we encourage all residents to take the time to understand the importance of mental health and suicide prevention, to recognize the signs that someone may need support, to
[00:16:50] reach out to those who may be struggling, and to remember that care for ourselves and one another includes caring for our mental health and emotional well-being. Now therefore, be it proclaimed on behalf be it proclaimed on behalf of the select board of the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, that
[00:17:05] September 2026 is hereby proclaimed as in the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts. We inc uh National Suicide Prevention Month, and we encourage all residents to join in the important observation by promoting awareness, compassion, understanding, and support throughout our community.
[00:17:21] And witness hereof, we here unto set our hands and cause the cause to be affixed the great seal of the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts. this 8th day of September, 2026. Um to pause for a moment, just check in with folks, right? That's really what
[00:17:38] this is about. It's about bringing recognition to um suicide awareness and to being active members of our community, checking in with our neighbors, checking in with our friends, making sure people have a place to be heard um so that we can prevent this
[00:17:53] from happening to other friends and family members. We have a second proclamation which I'll read unless I have a volunteer. I'll read also give you a break if you want. >> Will you? That would be great. Thank you
[00:18:09] so much. >> Sure. All right. The National Senior Center Month proclamation by the Swampscott Select Board. Whereas since 2007, National Senior Center Month has been pro celebrated each September as recognized by the National Council on Aging and the National Institute of
[00:18:25] Senior Centers to celebrate senior centers across the country and the important work they do to enrich and enhance the lives of older adults. And whereas the Swampscott Senior Center is committed to fostering an inclusive and welcoming community for all people and recognizes and celebrates the diversity of our community. And whereas the town
[00:18:40] of Swampscot supports the rights of every citizen to experience equality, dignity, respect, and freedom from discrimination. And whereas the origins of National Senior Center Month can be traced to National Senior Center Week, first celebrated in May 1979 to
[00:18:56] recognize senior centers throughout the nation and the essential role they play in supporting old adults, older adults, and strengthening communities. And whereas in 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued the first presidential proclamation recognizing National Senior
[00:19:11] Center Week. And in 2007, the National Institute of Senior Centers expanded the OB observance to an entire month, designating each September as National Senior Center Month. And whereas since 2021, the town of Swampscott has continued to strengthen
[00:19:27] its commitment to older adults through dedicated leadership resources, programs, services, and opportunities that support healthy and active aging. And whereas the Swampscott Senior Center serves as an important community resource providing social, educational,
[00:19:43] recreational, and wellness programs, as well as nutritious meals, transportation services, and opportunities for connection and engagement. And whereas the town of Swampscott is proud of its growing senior community and recognizes that senior c uh senior centers play an
[00:20:00] essential role in supporting the overall health and well-being of older adults, particularly by reducing social isolation, encouraging meaningful connections, and creating opportunities for seniors to remain active and engaged in their community. And whereas Swampscott continues to envision opportunities to serve residents of all
[00:20:16] ages and generations while recognizing the important role older adults play in the strength, character, history, and future of our community. And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by virtue of the authority vested in the select board of the town of Swamscott, Massachusetts, that the month of September 2026 is
[00:20:33] hereby proclaimed as in the town of Swanscott, Massachusetts. And we encourage all residents, businesses, faith-based, and nonprofit institutions, community groups, and public institutions to acknowledge, honor, value, and celebrate the contributions of older adults to our community, and to
[00:20:50] recognize the dedicated individuals who serve and support them each day. In witness whereof, we have here unto set our hands and cause to be affixed the great seal of the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, this 8th day of September, 2026.
[00:21:05] Thank you, Ted. Appreciate that. Appreciate all that the senior center continues to do for our aging population, especially our director ammeritus Heidi Weir and our current director. So,
[00:21:22] we will move on to it is not quite 7 o'clock and that's what we posted. Can I still go on? >> We have to wait. >> We have to wait. Okay. So, let's move on to what can we move on to for five minutes? Discussion of the charter commission.
[00:21:39] >> It's posted for 6:30. >> It's It says 6:30 on here, but it was posted in the paper as 7. >> So, I don't want to start it um until the publicly posted time. >> So, that's why I'm waiting for IRA um to open. Can we move on to the charter
[00:21:54] conversation for five minutes or is it going to take longer than that? >> I can just speak to it if that's okay. >> Please. instead of the slides for now. >> Yes. And then we can go ahead. >> If we even need to do the slides, we can decide that later. >> Go ahead. >> Um, so the the purpose of the review is that there had been a handful of um
[00:22:11] folks that expressed interest in looking at individual parts and pieces of the charter and trying to understand if the authorities um the roles, the appointments and structures, the budget and capital process, if everything that we last agreed on in 2016 is still, you know, in its appropriate form. Uh I know going
[00:22:28] back to the draft of 2001 or 2002, the idea was that every 5 years, uh the town would actually be taking a look at it. In the 2016 draft, we removed that 5-year uh look back. So now here we are 10 years later thinking it's probably a good time for us to take a few moments
[00:22:44] um throughout a year or so to get together and figure out uh what the best next steps might be. Um so as I said, it largely dates from the 2016 revision. there were not a ton of changes made. Uh I had some discussions with um Jerry Perry because he was involved both in
[00:23:01] the drafting and at least on the tangential parts of 2016, but he also supported other communities in this effort um at Mass DO to sort of understand best practices and what's going on. And also currently, you know, in the last 18 months, he's worked on a
[00:23:16] revision in Beverly as well. Uh generally speaking, there's a process that that goes forward. It starts with a charter review committee. Um in the past here in town we had gone to town meeting with an article that would set forth the charge and the composition of that
[00:23:32] committee. It's, you know, between five and seven people normally. Uh it would be, you know, if it's at the five person level, it would like to be one appointment from you all, one from the school committee, one from finance, and potentially two from the moderator, at least looking at models that have been used statewide. Uh to put together a
[00:23:49] group that would meet with um you know, committee chairs, committee members, citizens throughout the course of a year. Uh, I think when we talked about timeline last week or two weeks ago when we when we last met, the question was sort of how long would we anticipate
[00:24:04] this taking? If we were to go forward a town meeting in December, uh, I would think that we would be looking at a 12-month process where next December they would be coming forward. So it's you know appoint um and appoint the review body uh establish uh the charge and scope begin public input then we
[00:24:21] move into the meetings with the boards and committees staff residents and others uh to identify proposed changes into the spring of next year. Uh throughout the spring and summer we would be categor categorizing the recommendations and determining the legal path forward. There's two different ways to do it. We can make
[00:24:36] some changes and it would likely just be accepted as a home rule petition if it goes through town meeting. If we make significant changes, it likely would also need to go to a referendum. So, it' be town meeting uh the legislature and a referendum all that is a decision in a path we would probably wait to decide on
[00:24:53] until we get a little further along next spring or summer so that we understand sort of the breadth of what the suggested changes may be and we can figure out what would work best and then we would be coming to town meeting uh a year from now with that recommendation and those changes. The other thing a lot of communities are doing right now is
[00:25:08] they're working with outside consultants. Primarily, the Colin Center works closely with communities to do this. I've reached out to them to look at sort of a draft scope and to understand what a budget might look like, making no commitment whatsoever other than letting them know that we're sort of looking at this and I want to
[00:25:24] understand what that would look like if we were to partner with them or another organization that's similar. Um, and they help both facilitate the process of public engagement to make sure we're leveraging um, you know, technology and things like I know SWAC had done different um, surveys in town to make
[00:25:41] sure that the feedback was broader than who may show up for a meeting whether in in person or virtual. Uh, so we would work potentially with them on on things like that, but they also have best practices that they've developed over the last few years working with communities. this is one of their core competencies in support of
[00:25:56] municipalities across the state. So, I don't have the information on pricing in that yet, but we're looking into that as well. Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Trying to keep this to five minutes so that we can facilitate a discussion uh without stepping on the IRA time too much.
[00:26:12] >> Are there grant opportunities for to engage with >> I would look at the community compact. I'm not certain. I can look into that though. Can you help us understand what the difference is between a committee and an elected formal charter commission? >> Well, the appointed committee would
[00:26:28] allow it to be, you know, a number of boards identifying, like I said, if there was a five participant board, it would likely be one from each of the three committees I mentioned. And then >> the one thing I neglected to say, the moderator would in the past at least choose from elected town meeting members. So, it's not just picking, you
[00:26:45] know, someone that has not been engaged and involved. uh an elected process is necessarily more political I think than a process where you know elected bodies appoint someone that they think is well qualified to help lead this process for the community. But at what point do is
[00:27:01] there a choice that we can make? Is I'm just trying to understand the mechanisms of how this proceeds in terms of are is it the select board who sets the the the delivery of how that committee operates?
[00:27:17] In other words, I mean there's the there's state law that dictates a commission, right? Versus a committee. at where does the town lie in an obligation to fulfill that law? In other words, do we are we forced to
[00:27:33] create a commission? >> It it is better to start with the committee so that you can identify what the breadth of the changes are. If the idea was to come back with >> we need to change to a a mayor council form of government. it would be a completely different idea than we want
[00:27:49] to look at some appointment authorities to make sure that they best represent the community in this and that was really the questions that came up last spring were really around appointment authority. It was not a wholesale change of uh the sort of structure of town government. It was making sure that what
[00:28:04] we're doing now and what we decided 10 years ago still makes sense now um in 2026. >> Does that represent I mean the three members of the board does that reasonably represent the conversations we had in the spring? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, are we gonna come back to this conversation?
[00:28:19] >> We can. >> Okay. >> Sure. We could table it and then go to Iraq. >> Yeah, >> that's fine. >> All right. So, we will table the rest of this and we will move on to the Earth Removal Advisory Committee joint meeting and public hearing. This hearing was postponed or was this a new hearing?
[00:28:35] Can't recall from >> new open. >> It was never opened. Great. Uh so uh if you guys want to open your meeting, we have to vote to open the public hearing first.
[00:28:51] >> So move >> say >> second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I now you guys can open your meeting. >> Okay, >> you're good. >> Okay, great.
[00:29:08] >> Thank you. All right, Joe, you want to take it away? >> Uh, sure. I when we last uh met on this this topic, um when you had the permit in front of you, uh Iraq had uh asked that you you uh postpone consideration
[00:29:25] of its approval because uh the town earth removal bylaw has a lot of um conditions that are required to be part of the permit. And um we did not include many of those provisions and we felt that and nor did we address those
[00:29:41] provisions that we did not include in the permit. And because this is the law of the land, we felt that we necess we needed to say something about those provisions of the bylaw that we did not include in this permit. So the only
[00:29:56] difference between the permit you have in front of you and the one that you had um when we last met is the fourth paragraph on the first page. And it effectively says that um let me stop by saying that um these
[00:30:14] requirements are in uh the earth removal uh by uh bylaw is article 13 and I'm specifically looking at section 4 which is general limitations and under general limitations uh there are um it it essentially says
[00:30:30] the permit shall include but not be limited to conditions that address the following and there are approximately 18 different conditions that need to be uh addressed. We did not address them all. And this paragraph explains why not all
[00:30:46] of those uh conditions are addressed. And in large part, it's because they either are inapplicable, impractical, impossible, and and um so we did not include them, but we also um didn't want to say
[00:31:03] nothing about them. And for for example um in in the bylaw it says that um the permit shall include conditions that address type and location of structures. First of all it's vague. Um second maybe
[00:31:20] it refers to a construction trailer but planning would take care of that. um once once a project goes through planning and zoning and the building inspector does does Iraq really have the authority to say no no we don't like those structures we want to put them
[00:31:35] elsewhere it doesn't or it shouldn't so of these uh provisions uh set up conflict but there if at best they're redundant but um at worst conflict another one is uh number seven the area and depth of excavation again that's
[00:31:51] something that's going to be dictated by the permits that the project has received does have the ability or or the board of select the select board have the ability to come in and say no no we don't like that we don't you know we want you to do instead of 10 feet we want you to do 8
[00:32:07] feet even though you have a permit for 10 ft so we felt we had to say something in the permit that addresses why that is not a condition in the permit and many and many others and that fourth paragraph is what uh accomplishes that
[00:32:23] purpose Um the select board certainly has the prerogative to say, well, we do want some of these conditions that that IRA did not address included. And if we and if that were the case, there would have to be discussion and we'd go back and
[00:32:38] and and if that were the case, I don't think IRA would have to approve again. I think we're at the select board stage. So changes that you prefer to make, you you can make. So, uh that's where we're at. So uh uh you know certainly uh
[00:32:55] willing to entertain any discussion of u every any aspect of the permit. Um I have nothing really more to present and and would recommend that the select board um accept the recommendation of IRA for the permit for 555 uh Essex Street.
[00:33:13] >> Okay. Um I just have a couple follow-ups to what this new paragraph. Um, are we considering the any adjustments to the bylaw post this permit outside of >> Yeah. Um,
[00:33:30] we we have uh talked about taking a look at the bylaw uh and presenting amendments uh for the spring town meeting. >> Great. >> So, uh we haven't gotten into that yet, but uh it's the bylaw. It's it's there are provisions in the bylaw that
[00:33:45] are appropriate for standalone projects that have a beginning and an end. And then we have the quarry >> right >> and there are many provisions here that just don't apply to the quarry and there are many that don't apply to a standalone project. So uh we are going to be discussing how we can segregate
[00:34:01] those >> and clarify them and make them less vague and um so yes that'll be coming in the spring. >> I have a couple questions. one is uh under four 4D for contaminated soil and
[00:34:18] material. How is that monitored? >> Well, I think a lot of the problems with with forc in the bylaw is that there's no mechanism to enforce. Uh there's no penalties if enforcement found a a
[00:34:33] problem. So, I don't think it's practical or realistic to think that Iraq members are going to be monitoring going down at the at at project sites and and monitoring um a lot of what goes down. Although Tony might I mean uh
[00:34:52] >> but um >> but uh we have addressed the um these issues with with um the project u representatives and so if you wanted detail on how that those those items are being handled I think they are better
[00:35:09] position to discuss that. You want to say something? Could I suggest um I don't know if you're ready to kind of give an overview um Andy or Ken or Nick. I'm guessing you're here to speak on the project. Could you give an overview of the scope that this permit is going to be authorizing?
[00:35:25] >> We'd be glad to. Just just for the record, my name is attorney Ken Shutzer. I'm really here on behalf of the Davis Company who is doing the construction Callahan of the project of the 161 residential units. Um the applicant Nick
[00:35:42] Manino is the one who was actually doing the site work and he's be the one who filled out the application and could probably give you more of the technical details than I but we we assembled this group in anticipation that you never know what's going to be asked until you're asked. U we we see the project
[00:35:58] coming along. We're very proud of what what hopefully you've seen and we just uh as a result of removing more than uh 400 cubic yards of soil. Um we've we've triggered the point where Iraq is now involved and clearly you are as well as
[00:36:14] the as the permitting authority. So if you want to direct any questions to Mr. Manino, I'm sure he'll be glad to answer them for you. >> That would be great if what's the like what is the amount of cubic earth you're going to be moving? What's the like just give me a 30,000 foot of what activities
[00:36:33] we are going to be permitting through this beyond the fact that you're going to be moving 450 ft or more offsite. >> So Nick Manino from Manino Construction representing uh Callahan and the owner Davis Companies. Uh the site's a unique site 555 is it's a big project with 163
[00:36:51] units but everyone was familiar with it. A relatively flat parking lot. There's not uh we have some we generate more earth removal sometimes from a a single family residence than we do this
[00:37:07] you know rather big site because our our cuts and fills are very close. So uh that's kind of an overview. The short answer is about a thousand cubic yards. Um and uh and fortunately the material that
[00:37:24] was put in there when the parking lot was uh built 30 or so years ago was hauled down from aggregate industries at the time. I think it was Lin Sand and Stone are our our aggregate now wholesome uh and that's been approved
[00:37:41] through uh through Callahan and the geotechnical engineers that geoengineering uh that we have on site to reuse um most if not all of that material. So,
[00:37:57] uh, it's it's a relatively small amount of material that will leave the site for such a large site. Yeah. >> How much of the material is moving off site? >> About 1,000 yards. >> Okay. Thousand yards. The rest of it's going to remain on site in some other Okay. >> Yeah. To give a, you know, comparison,
[00:38:14] there was 30 30,000 yards moved off for the uh, elementary school that was recently built. >> Thank you. I have a question about the big dirt pile next to stop and shop. Um
[00:38:30] I have had calls from people asking is it healthy that there's this huge dirt pile down in our area here and um and there so I have had concerns about whether or not that's a health hazard or whatever kind of issues might come of
[00:38:46] that. So and it says here in the permit that it gets sprayed down um etc. But is it being sprayed down on the weekends or is that how is that being monitored? >> So the the material we have a water truck on site and it is sprayed down
[00:39:03] regularly. Uh it it isn't and we have worked in there on an occasional Saturday for a little bit but uh for the most part no it's not sprayed down but it's also not dug and moved around on Saturday. So, it's usually when we're
[00:39:19] digging into the material and and loading it. Um, we're we're adding to that pile as we dig foundations and then we're removing from that pile as we back fill the foundations, you know, creating as much of a balanced site as we can.
[00:39:34] So, it's it's as we're moving it around the site, tracking around with heavy dump trucks and loaders that you tend to kick up the dust and and need to keep the site wet to minimize um minimize the dust, which is the real problem. And uh
[00:39:50] the loom pile that was there was hydroed and the the earth pile that's there that's being reused is wet regularly certainly when we're digging into it. >> Great. Makes sense. >> Thank you. So I I have a question about the the Japanese notwheat part of this.
[00:40:05] I know this was discussed in prior Iraq meetings. Um can you give us an update as to how you're managing that actively? Has it been moved off site? Is it is it separately identified? And I thought there was conversation recently about hydro seeding the Japanese not weed pile
[00:40:22] which doesn't necessarily aid in its um what's the word I'm trying to find? Uh diffusion into the environment. Can you talk a little bit about what you're doing with with that? >> I'll let Mike from Calan talk to it.
[00:40:41] >> So, the the pile of lom that was hydro seated is also the pile that the Japanese not wood grew in. Um, we've hired a consultant who has come up with a rough plan on how to treat it. And at the same time, we
[00:40:57] covered it with tarps today to help as it starts to flower this fall, minimize how much of it could spread to other properties. But the gist of the treatment would be to cut it, spray it with a pesticide in
[00:41:14] the end of September, beginning of October this year, and then next year cut it in June and spray it in September as well. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
[00:41:33] >> And I'll add something to that. It it looks worse now because it's all in one spot, >> but it's actually a lot easier for the control of it, whether it's covering it with tops or treating it. It was spread out all along Essex Street, and it's a
[00:41:48] real problem u on on a lot of sites, you know, throughout the town and the state. So, we're it's it's a bit of of a learning curve for all of us, but the fact that it's in one condensed pile is making the treatment plan a little bit easier. And so when you do use
[00:42:05] pesticides because the drainage area does go straight to the ocean is there consideration of making sure that there is no again diffusion of the product into the into the basin. >> So there that has been that was discussed with the consultant
[00:42:22] we were talking about which is why he's still going back and forth on a final written plan of okay I'm going to use this pesticide or this one. And I think that's part of the um part of what he's looking into. >> So you really don't have a plan.
[00:42:38] >> Could you have the people speak up? >> Sure. I'd be glad to have the people speak up. Could you just speak into the microphone so it circulates through the room? >> Thank you. So, I was saying um that's part of the consultant's issue right now is that
[00:42:54] he's going back and forth and making sure whatever pesticide he decides to use doesn't cause any environmental issues. >> Okay. Additional questions outside of the
[00:43:10] notweed? I'm seeing none, >> we will move on to a motion. Motion to close the public hearing. Is that what you're looking for? >> Do we have to any public comment? >> We will end the public hearing first and then take the motion after.
[00:43:27] >> I was asking if we do public comments. >> We do have public comment as part of the public hearing. Is do any of the public? >> Anybody online? >> No. >> Nope. Thanks for the reminder. Looks like we're good.
[00:43:42] >> So, we have a motion on the table to close the public hearing. Can I have a second? Ted. All in favor? >> I >> I Okay, we will now move for a motion. >> Motion to approve the public. Motion to approve the permit. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I.
[00:43:58] >> Thank you all. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for joining us and for the information. >> We will move on to the Kleinfelder report. We did receive some an email from the public asking us to speak very
[00:44:15] clearly into our microphones because it is difficult to hear even online. So if we could get very close like a rock star as Joe said that would be helpful to them. >> Can you make me present?
[00:44:33] >> Thank you Iraq. Thank you. All right. >> There's another microphone there if you want to.
[00:44:49] >> Who does that? >> Who? >> Trying to do it for me right now. >> So, I can share the slides. >> Okay. Maybe you guys could start while we try to pull the slides up.
[00:45:06] >> Sure. Um, I guess I'll just make an opening comment. This is David Peterson with Kleinfelder. Um we do have a three different companies that kind of worked on this as well as a bunch of folks from the town. So I just want to make acknowledgements and we also have um
[00:45:22] representatives from Mallister Marine Engineering here and Woodsole Group as well as Kleinfelder. So I want to acknowledge the consultant team. Um so Brandon Raymond is to my left from Woodshole Group, Seth Bryant from Kleinfelder and then on the um screen there is John McAllister. Hopefully we
[00:45:39] can get the technology work that he can speak. Um and so um you know we were um first brought together to work on this coastal resiliency plan um focused specifically on Fisherman's Beach. Um Doug Thompson I think was the you sort
[00:45:55] of the the force behind it from the select board originally and um you know so it it it started from there. Originally we were pursuing some grant funding for the project. Um we were unfortunately unable to uh get the grant but we were very happy that the town
[00:46:10] proceeded with a lesser scoped project. Um, and one of the themes and recommendations of this is, you know, because we had to cut the scope down and the cost down, um, we didn't have much of a public outreach or any real public outreach piece at all, that's going to
[00:46:26] be a really critical part of, you know, any future steps. Um, and we have a slide about that later. Um, so in terms of the the the last slide, which I'll just talk about it now because we don't need to wait till the end. um in terms of who was involved in the town. So um
[00:46:44] Marsy Galaska and Tim Milikin um were part of it. Gino Cresta, Martha Schmidt, Liz Smith, Jackson Schultz, Tadoulie. So we had a variety of um meetings and input um from town officials and and committee members. Um but you know,
[00:47:00] lacking is like a really at large um you know, public outreach campaign, which is something that we we know will need to um happen in the future. Um, so, um, the technical team is everyone who's not me. So, um, I know
[00:47:16] you guys want to hear from, um, you know, Seth and and Brandon and John. So, I'm going to turn it over to Seth who will facilitate the rest of the presentation. >> Shannon, are you able to take John off mute >> or at least allow him? Oh, he's off.
[00:47:31] Okay, he's good. Okay, thank you. Never mind. You're good. >> Is he able to speak? Do we know? Did that technical hiccup tested? >> Okay. >> Oh, okay. How you doing? You want to try? >> Nope. We can't hear him. >> We can see you talking, but we cannot
[00:47:46] hear you, sir. >> Let's uh keep going and maybe somebody else can act like his voice. >> Yeah, we're prepared to cover his content. >> Thank you. We'll come back if we can get it to work, but let's go a different direction. >> Yeah, he's a few slides in, so
[00:48:03] >> Okay, good. >> Perfect. Has a little bit of time. Um, sure. So to get started um just a quick agenda. We'll give some background on the project. Uh the aim of this project was both to look at what is the vulnerability for Swamp Scott on the coast uh particularly around Fisherman's
[00:48:18] Beach. Um so we'll start with that vulnerability assessments and then move into an alternatives analysis uh where we dug in and looked at what type of solutions might be appropriate for the coast to protect um your town from flooding in the future. Um from there uh
[00:48:33] Brandon and Wood which whole group worked on some modeling to show um what the benefit of some of these solutions might look like. Um then we'll move on to recommendations. Next slide. Um so just real quickly to give some background on what your coastal vulnerability looks like, we looked at a
[00:48:50] range of scenarios um for various climate horizons. So looking at 2030, 2050, 2070, looking with sea level rise, um how the risk might change moving forward. Um I have just a snapshot here of what in 2030 the projected coastal
[00:49:06] risk is. Um so this shows the probability in a given year that these areas might flood. Um and you can see the dark blue on the left over by Kings Beach right on the Lind border um has a highest probability extending inland. Um, and then the focus of this project was around Fisherman's Beach, um, which
[00:49:23] you can see there's a number of flood pathways that really, um, go pretty pretty deep into town, past Puritan Road and Humphrey Street. Um, so even though it's a it's a small sliver coastline, it's relatively low position. Um, means that flooding happens, it's a flood pathway that could infect a much broader
[00:49:40] area. Um and in the report which um is currently in a draft form and I know we've provided to um select board as well as the committee working on it um we go through and identify all of the town assets that are at risk of flooding um with a probability that they would
[00:49:56] flood in a given year. Um so just highlighted here the fish house, the police station and um the Humphrey Street pump station. Um that's three town owned facilities kind of right in the center of that fisherman's beach flood pathway.
[00:50:11] Uh next slide. Um so as part of this project we also looked at um the compound risk of both coastal flooding. So that last one was looking at a coastal event. So think um coming in from the coast, waves, storm surge, things like that. Um but we also
[00:50:28] looked at what the risk was from extreme rainfall um compound with the coastal risk. Um so here is an example of one scenario we looked at. um where there's a relatively high tide, but not one that would cause flooding on its own. But if that were to
[00:50:44] occur when a large precipitation event happened, in this case a 25-y year um return period event, and you can see um the areas at flood risk are similar. Um what happens if there's a large storm event that comes in when there's high tide? Um this whole area drains to the
[00:51:00] ocean. So you have reduced capacity in your storm water system. Um, so there's there's flutters present just from the combination of high tide and rainfall and not being to drain out. Um, so just wanted to point out that this was also part of the analysis. Um, and then on the right there, I've just showed um
[00:51:17] with climate change what the expected risk is looking like to change for Swans. Um, you can see just the bar chart there um how the 100red-year storm or the 1% probability in a given year. you can see from now until 2070 um a
[00:51:33] pretty large expected increase. Um so that's kind of the risk that we were looking at. >> Um >> can I ask please >> a question? So I just have uh >> a quick question because my understanding is this report this report
[00:51:48] was done to update the last report that we had. Right. Correct. So we had that last report now this is the update on this one. The last report it said that we were most most vulnerable in the Humphrey Street area by the police station and the um pumping station. And
[00:52:04] now is this report saying that we're most vulnerable uh at the fish house? >> So the fish house um is is in that same zone. I we we did rank everything from vulnerability. Um I
[00:52:19] think the the police station and the pump station were still the highest. Um, but the fish house is a low point in the area that acts as a flood pathway. Okay. >> Um, so it's a critical one we wanted to address as well. >> And then what about over here over to the left? Because that's in dark blue, the one that's >> like on Phillips Park.
[00:52:36] >> Yeah. >> Yep. So that area had the highest probability of flooding under these future projections. >> Right. So this is what's confusing me is the is this a change? >> That's King's Beach and >> going into Lynn, I think, right? >> Yeah. On the left says Scott, right?
[00:52:51] Correct. Yeah, I just don't >> that's Pearl Street. >> Not sure what that is there. I think I'm just trying to get clarity on uh the difference in the reports from the first report to this report. Is it is it a different situation now or is it >> Yeah. So, so we we relied on updated
[00:53:08] modeling completed by Woods Hole Group. Um and in that left area by Kings Beach, there was an expansion in the area. Okay. >> Um that is looking like it could be prone to flooding in the future. Um, so we've we've added in assets over
[00:53:25] there and um catalog streets at risk of flooding and their probability in the report. Um, so those are new additions. Um, that's correct. >> Um, when we looked at flood mitigation, we focused on fisherman's speech because that was the scope of the project. Um, but
[00:53:41] there that's correct that those other areas are at risk too, >> right? I guess I guess my understanding from the meetings were the scope of the project was to update our update our vulnerability study. I didn't I I didn't walk away thinking it was fisherman's
[00:53:58] beach. I thought it was the entire the the previous to update the previous study. >> Yeah. No, you're right. The the vulnerability and the the extent of flooding was updated for the entire coastline of the town, >> but the mitigation aspect and like the alternative analysis was focused specifically on Fisherman's Beach. that
[00:54:14] was deemed to be the not by us by the town that was deemed to be the highest priority segment to look at first. >> Okay. >> Um it actually has like quite a lot of assets, town owned assets, you know, critical facilities inside that that zone. So, it made sense to us, >> right? But would it would it be fair to
[00:54:31] say that the most critical asset that we have would be the pump station? If we lose that pump station, what happens to the town? >> We have no way to >> I know. Is it >> Yeah, but if you look >> I guess if you look at this Go ahead.
[00:54:47] >> is what I've gathered from this is the entry points for the uh coastal flooding are along Fisherman's Beach, Iceman's Beach, Wales Beach, that whole area is the entry point for the flooding that would >> through elevation change and rainfall,
[00:55:04] you know, sink to the darker blue areas that are inland. Is that correct? Yeah, there's there's a small number of finite entry points and then they'll basically flood a large inland area. So, kind of the point of this is to try to protect those vulnerable points of entry, right? So, >> so you mitigate the pathways in order to
[00:55:21] prevent flooding across the whole area. That's what say >> y skeptic. >> Well, yeah, I am a sk I'm going to tell you right now. My biggest worry is the pump station. You know, I understand,
[00:55:36] you know, well, the whole area, >> I'm a little familiar with the area, so the whole area has me concerned, but that pump station and where are we most if you said where are we most vulnerable? We're vulnerable right there. >> Right. >> Correct me if I'm wrong because if we lose that pump station,
[00:55:52] >> we we lost it in 2011. >> We flooded it in 2011, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Right. and the the flood pathways we're trying to address as the alternatives assessment looks at cutting off flooding to that area where the pump station is.
[00:56:08] >> Yeah. I at the end of your presentation you've got the modeling for the proposed solutions, right? That take away that >> flooding risk. >> Yeah. >> Projected. Great. >> Yeah. I think those will help. >> Great. >> Um let's move on to the next slide.
[00:56:24] Um so we we assessed a large range of alternatives looking at cutting off these flood pathways particularly for fisherman speech. Um we looked at um a range of criteria and assessing those to try to come up with an objective way to cut some and move others to the top. Um
[00:56:40] we worked with the committee that Dave mentioned representing various committees in town in order to come up with um what we would prioritize and we have the full list of criteria here. I'll just point out that the ones that um were decided to be the most important
[00:56:56] were the effectiveness of the solution at the capital cost and then stakeholder acceptance. So um how it affects residents and the community in the area. Um but we did assess every alternative that we'll be talking about against all of these criteria uh to come up with a
[00:57:12] composite score and those scores were used to rank the alternatives we'll talk about. Um so if we move on we can dive into what those were that we looked at. Um so we broke the coastline into three segments based on um kind of distinct
[00:57:27] attributes of each one. Uh so on the far left we have the fisherman's beach parking lot area uh which is relatively lowlying and potential flood pathway um owned by the town. Um to the right we have the Puritan road area. Um we separated this one out because it's a
[00:57:44] little distinct because it's mostly privately owned. It's currently protected by private seaw walls. Um, and then lastly, we looked at the fish house as its own alternative um, just because there are a lot of historic considerations with it being um, a nationally listed uh, property um, right
[00:58:00] in the mix of the flood zone. Um, and then lastly, we had a few other alternatives we looked at that were kind of beyond those um, that included a living breakwater in the harbor itself um, as well as other solutions like tide gates and storm water pump stations.
[00:58:15] Um so if we move to the next slide. Um after our initial analysis using the criteria we discussed we did a high level analysis and we we cut some right off the bat. Um so these included elevating Humphrey Street and Puritan Road. Uh we found that these just
[00:58:32] weren't feasible because of the elevation you would need to get to um connecting to driveways. It it just wasn't really a possibility. Um and we eliminated the living breakwater just due to high costs. Um and it it wasn't the most effective solution to provide
[00:58:49] flood protection for the coastline. Um so what that left us with um we looked at within the parking lot area um elevating the parking lot itself um or doing strategic retreat. So removing the parking lot and replacing it with
[00:59:04] something more like a dune, a a naturebased solution, something that could protect behind it. Um along Puritin Road, we looked at the possibility of augmenting or raising the existing seaw walls that are already there to provide a cohesive barrier to
[00:59:20] flooding. Um and we also looked at building up the beach in front of the barriers and um again making a dune. So a more nature-based solution. And then lastly, at the fish house, we looked at flood proofing the fish house, raising it, relocating it, um or fully replacing
[00:59:37] it. Um and we'll get more into that later. Um and for all of these, we are looking at a design flood elevation of 13 ft. Um so that's 13 ft above sea level. Um for reference, the ground elevation there is at about 10 ft. Um so this is about think right at the fish
[00:59:53] house, just everything would be 3 ft above the existing ground level. Um that's kind of what you need to protect too to make sure um that these storms we were looking at wouldn't wouldn't flood beyond the coastline. >> What's the reason to design to 13 ft? Is there a statutory or is that best
[01:00:08] practice or what's >> So we we used um the resilient mass action team's guidance which is from um EA um and their recommendation for this type of flooding was to look at the the 2050.2 probability storm event. Um so 0.2% 2%
[01:00:25] chance it happens in the end of the year in 2050 with sea level rise. So a fairly conservative estimate. >> Okay. >> Um so that projected elevation the peak one for the coastline that was 13 ft. >> Okay. Thanks. >> You said the current um elevation of the
[01:00:42] parking lot is what? >> Uh 10 ft. >> Okay. So if there is there is a barricade around the parking lot, right? There's jersey barriers. >> Jersey barriers. >> That's not effective enough. You have to like I mean it's not a barrier but it's barriering.
[01:00:57] >> Yeah. So so we one of the options was looking at replacing it with a more permanent seaw wall. Okay. >> Um and it has to be built to be able to withstand wave action. So >> need something behind it. >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> When we talk about going back to the 13t question when you're talking about storms and wave driven storms you can
[01:01:13] get significantly above that. What is is for some, you know, I is 13 ft really enough or is that just the mean sea level rise that you're worried about as opposed to impact of windblown storms? >> So, hurricanes, >> those are No, it's looking at the um and
[01:01:31] maybe Brandon can speak to this one because he did work, but >> hi. Um yeah, thanks. Um yeah, my name is Brandon Raymond. I'm a coastal engineer with Woods Hole Group. Thank you very much for having me and thank you Client Felder for including us on this important project. Um to answer your question about the 13 ft what that
[01:01:47] represents is what we call still water elevation. So this is the combination of tides and storm surge wind driven storm surge. Uh what it does not include is the influence of wave runup up onto a beach or something that might be over topping a seaw wall or something like that which is tends to be something that
[01:02:04] handle is either if you're not protecting against it you're usually accounting for it in drainage of catch basations and things like that but ultimately that's uh the 2050.0 zero no 2% >> basically the five what we call the 500year event is so it's by 2050 so
[01:02:22] that's including sea level rise and then of course the statistical analysis to get us that >> so the term still water is a little counter u intuitive >> still water and the yeah I guess you're right yes to it >> yeah oh that's why I was asking the question because I was a little confused when I saw that I when I saw the word
[01:02:38] still water I thought it was >> what it really means is so it's the so it's the influence of tides wind driven storm surge and then also um what we call wave setup. So anytime waves are breaking at the shoreline, that turbulence actually raises up the water level just to hair. And so when you add
[01:02:54] all that up together, you get a still water elevation at the shoreline. Okay, great. Thank you. >> Thanks, Brandon. Um any more questions on this one before we
[01:03:09] dive into these areas? I just I I did want to go back just uh back to the page where you had the analysis piece of this where where did the waiting come from? >> Um we did a workshop with um the
[01:03:25] representatives from the town on the committee that Dave mentioned um where we provided that these were the criteria that we were planning to look at um and we worked with them to develop if we were missing any and then they went through and waited um their priority for those. >> Okay. >> So none of this was was our thoughts. It
[01:03:42] was um reflects what the town thinks. >> Does this match plus or minus what you see other communities doing in terms of waiting like efficacy, social acceptance, and capital cost? Are those what most communities kind of rate
[01:03:57] highest? >> Uh definitely. Yeah. I And I mean effectiveness, efficacy is we want a solution that's going to be effective. So >> 100%. >> Definitely agreed that that should be the top one. >> Thanks. Um, I think we can move on to the next
[01:04:14] slide. >> Um, so the first area is the Humphrey Street and Fish House parking lot. I think John was going to take this one. Um, >> yes. Can you guys hear me now? >> We can. We can. >> Thank you, John. >> All right. We're good. All right.
[01:04:29] >> Welcome, John. >> Well, thank you everyone. Sorry for the technical diff and not being able to be there. But John Mallister, Mallister Marine Engineering, again worked with the team on this uh specifically looking at the parking lot here. Um what we looked at once we got into this analysis
[01:04:45] really four separate options as you can see on the slide. Um one and three kind of go together where it is um essentially augmenting what's there for existing infrastructure by a raising of permanent seaw wall that's designed be probably reinforced
[01:05:01] concrete but it's designed to resist uh wave action and hydrostatic pressures that would be forced from additional um water rising. Um, on the option one, you would have that along the front side of
[01:05:17] the beach or on the south side of the parking lot, if you will. And because we want to maintain access, you kind of have to design for the norm and for the storm, you would have to augment uh the three openings for the boat ramp, the stairs down, and the um the other access
[01:05:34] all the way to the west. They have to augment that seaw wall with deployable barrier. Um, important to note the the uh parking lot isn't perfectly flat elevation. It does range its lowest in
[01:05:49] the east by the fish house where it's about 9.8 and it actually rises up to about 11.2 uh all the way to the west and at Chesan Park which is over kind of to the the park just to the west of the facility is actually above elevation 13. So we don't have to do any interventions there. It's
[01:06:04] actually a natural barrier that we can build off of and connect into that. Um, so I'm going to skip to option three. Uh, it's a similar strategy to what option one was. Uh, except it'd be on the back side or the north side of the parking lot. And, um, what's attractive
[01:06:20] about that is there's already a little curving little wall there. It just have to be brought up about uh, 2 to 3 ft higher. It could be made nice. You could, you know, it would have to be reinforced concrete again to withstand the hydrostatic pressures, but you could do some stamped stones on it, make it look aesthetically pleasing. And then
[01:06:37] you only have two um two areas you have to close off on just the entrance into the into the parking lot and the exit. Um those areas would just need to be deployed in advance of a storm because usually these things are forecast and you have some time. So Gino and his crew
[01:06:52] would have to get out there and deploy these barriers to seal it off and then once the storm is passed and was receded, you can take that down and stuff can go back to their normal operation. Uh then the other two options we looked at were on two uh options two
[01:07:08] and four and those both involved raising the grades within the parking lot itself. So number two um is raising it and keeping it as a parking structure, a parking area I should say, but bring it up to elevation 13. Now, in order to do that with grading, you kind of have to
[01:07:24] peek it in the middle, uh just right down the center of the parking lot up to elevation 13, grade it back down to Humphrey Street, and grade it back down on the other side to um to the beach. difficulty for that is for the the boat launch. Uh if you're coming up off of
[01:07:41] Humphrey Street at around 9 and a half 10 up to 13 and then back down to launch your boat, it's for, you know, for a high clearance vehicle, it's not an issue, but when you're trolling with a trailer, you have that pinch point on the trailer, it
[01:07:56] could it could cause some issues, especially because you have to come in and back down to launch the boats. So, there is some challenges associated with that. Um, and the other issue is you're relying on the fish house to to provide some of that the connection to the fish
[01:08:13] house, I'm sorry, to provide some of that uh continuous wall of the elevation 13. So, by going up to elevation 13 in the middle, you essentially be losing a couple of blockers most likely or some other um some other impact to the fish house. But again, I think uh Seth and his team going to talk about that a
[01:08:29] little further on, but this just one one option to point out. And then option four that we looked at is a similar thing that instead of going with a parking lot be removing the whole infrastructure of parking and going with a a naturebased solution which would be doom. So you could take that out you
[01:08:45] would build it up with sand dredge out some sand place on the on the um on the shore seed it you'd have a more natural reinforced um area. it would be set through freezing. We still have the issue of uh the connection over at the
[01:09:02] fish house and there's a lot of maintenance associated with that especially early on when you're trying to get it established. Uh if we can go to the next slide please. So um as as we mentioned we kind of looked at the different impacts what factors would in uh would
[01:09:20] give us the best desired outcome for what we're looking at. uh no no option is cheap, no option is is bulletproof. You know, there's challenges, there's drawbacks, and there's positives for each one. Uh but what we ended up going with um based on these cost estimates,
[01:09:37] you know, in today's dollars, obviously things are fairly valuable lately and you know, planning forward, you you have to put in a goody factor on any budgetary figures, but in today's dollars, that's what we're looking at. But what we think is the most effective
[01:09:53] is actually unfortunately the most expensive, which would be that flood barrier along the um along the back edge along Humphrey Street on the north side of the parking lot. Uh because it has minimal impact on circulation. Uh, in fact, use it won't really affect
[01:10:11] use in the parking area because it's only about a two and a half, three foot wall and uh it doesn't affect activities and operation of the fish house because it just ties in naturally with it. So that's uh what we're uh looking for. So if we go to the next one, it's actually
[01:10:27] a better visualization of it. The next slide. Yeah. So this blue line here you could see would be that that solid wall that would be put in um between the the the sidewalk and the parking area. Raise up to elevation 13 be 2 to 3 ft high.
[01:10:45] You'd obvious have to uh reinforce the foundation be a little bit of excavation work and then those red area lines which would be the areas of deployable barriers which would be tied in um in advance of a storm when they're announced. So, you would lose, you know, a day before most likely each storm,
[01:11:00] you'd lose access to the beach. Uh, but no one's really going there because these storm events are, you know, public safety issues. So, you want to t block that off anyways, but you'd lose those two access points and then they' be taken down and you could go back to normal operations, but the only
[01:11:16] permanent infrastructure would be that that blue line. >> Um, so these have Yeah, >> just a quick question. And these deployable flood barriers are like what you would see like at the mouth of Winthrop or something. They're like big heavy metal
[01:11:32] >> like gates that come out. Is that what we're talking about? >> There there's multiple options. Okay. >> So there are some that are that that fold up. There are some that are just actually sandbags almost like they have like reinforced you just fill them up with sand. >> Um
[01:11:48] uh there's multiple options that you could put at uh and review. option did you quote cost >> which I actually took uh we got three quotes and we just used the the average cost >> for the different >> but what was the option technologies
[01:12:04] >> which solution >> which solution did you quote sorry >> uh I so I quoted the the sandag option and the um I don't know how you call them they're kind of like >> um the ones that pop up the hydrostatic ones that
[01:12:19] >> they're like the base pops up like this. If you can see me in the the water flush with the ground and then they pop up. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Is that right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's like a That's not a deployable one, but it's the same idea. They So, they they sit flat like this
[01:12:34] for storage. They can be stored on a pallet and they put them out there and they just go they open up like this, but Yeah. They're not like in place per primarily like that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So when we're looking at the choice here, right, because the one on Humphrey Street is several feet higher
[01:12:51] on average, >> right, from the lowest position of like 9 and 1/2 ft or roughly. So we talk I'm going go back to, you know, the original question I had before which was the 13T which encounters storms, waved driven action and so on. What is the by 2050
[01:13:08] and 2070 the expected king tide sea level rise? Where are we in at the point of a daily king tides? I know not every day but you know at the highest of high tides where are we at a
[01:13:24] regular flooding risk issue that does not account for storms? >> How high? >> I'll defer to Brad on that do you know off the top of your head? the top of my head. No. Um, but I mean, we're talking about >> I'm second. Sorry. Uh, I mean, so we're
[01:13:41] comparing what a 500year storm to a to a high tide. So, I I don't have those numbers off the top of my head, but I imagine there's quite a difference. >> The reason I was asking is that one is a response to an incoming storm or
[01:13:57] something that is projected or expected. The other scenario is something that happens on a regular daily basis, weekly, monthly basis. Something that you you kind of want a permanent structure there. So that's why I was asking the difference of why wouldn't
[01:14:13] you put it down at the beach as opposed to up higher. I mean, it kind of sets the table for all of the solutions we're looking at. Mhm. Well, well, sir, I'm sorry, just one more question uh thing about so the that 2% annual exceedence probability
[01:14:32] with a 500year storm is basically saying any given year that water would be met or exceeded point has a 2% chance of occurring. >> So really what we're talking about is you know how frequently are is that flooding going to be occurring. So the
[01:14:49] the king tide if you will is going to be obviously almost greater than it's a it's a 100% certainty that it's going to occur any given year. So that's that's the kind of a measure of the difference between elevations. >> Wait to say it another way then we are
[01:15:05] planning for 98 99.8% of water with 2% is what you're like we are like 99.8 8% of the time we'll be fine and it's only the 2% that we are
[01:15:22] planning for right now. >> Correct. >> Cuz I like >> elevation 13 though. So >> I mean there's >> I think to Wayne's point um we did check just the normal tide range that's expected with sea level rise and there is no sunny day flooding expected. Um
[01:15:39] >> let let me put this at >> sunny day flooding was the word I was I was trying to think of. Yes, but that was that was why I was asking the question. Sunday flooding. John, you are very well aware and familiar with our harbor and kind of the tide cycle. So to Wayne's point, >> we get a bad flood, we get a bad
[01:15:55] southwesterly. I know you've seen the photos of kind of what happens. >> Does this projected solution without those deployable flood barriers put in place, but the fixed structural ones help remedy
[01:16:10] that damage? So you have to look at as a total solution. I think that's we're going to get to later. It's what if there's one weak point, if there's one area where water can get in because water's going to find its easiest path. So if there's one area in this whole connected part
[01:16:27] that is lower, uh, whatever you do, it's not going to stop it. So you have to kind of have a a whole line of defense. And you go from elevation 13 to elevation 13. And I think they'll show that a little bit later on of of why there are several pathways in that you have to address each and every pathway
[01:16:42] because even if you just hit these ones here, uh it can go around and get it and get in there very easily and you'll still have it on the back end. It'll come and float around from the back end. >> Okay, >> go back one slide. >> All right, so
[01:16:59] the recommended solution is in red, right? And the the first solution basically is similar, right, in terms of benefits and drawbacks, challenges, and it's about $100,000 cheaper. So why why
[01:17:16] this solution? Why is this a better option? >> Because uh that one has a lot more of a maintenance burden on it, the front edge one. So, it's going to be a lot more work to to um to get them installed
[01:17:32] because if you're working on the back end, it's easier to picture you're putting in these deployable barriers because you have to have like a seal along the bottom. It's easier to seal on asphalt than it is on a beach. >> Okay. >> So, we have to make those and it it >> the one that says raise seaw wall along beach edge doesn't list anything in
[01:17:49] drawback challenge in terms of on andm or anything like that. So that's why I'm asking it has the exact same drawbacks and challenges and benefits as the highest scoring solution. Do you see what I'm saying? >> So I'm just trying to find out there's a
[01:18:05] $100,000 difference there. Why why that more expensive solution is the recommended. Do you know do you want to yeah >> getting at see my point there? >> I think that comes out >> because your benefits and your drawback are the exact same, right? >> The only thing you have different is estimated cost and alternative. It's
[01:18:22] just not detailed enough. >> Yeah, it's just maybe some upkeep is also the uh drawback and challenge should be listed there, >> right? The >> Yeah, but like the life cycle cost on it would be higher >> except for $100,000 different. >> John, is it fair to say that the reason why that wasn't pursued is because the
[01:18:37] ongoing maintenance of that requires more work and more capital expense to maintain that for the sameish benefit? >> Absolutely. Well, cuz if if you guys can if you look at the winter profile of the beach versus the summer profile, you
[01:18:52] notice that there's a lot more of the beach exposed um during the low season when the sand washes out. So, if you have a storm coming when that sand's out there, you have to adapt how you're how you're tying in those three points. So, it's a little bit more of a challenge to
[01:19:07] deploy and maintain it. So, that's absolutely right that that there is a longer term life cycle cost for it. I have to assume there's a similar life cycle cost to the dune replacement because like there's a lot of upkeep related to well first we have to create the dune and then we have to make sure there's enough sand for it to be effective right so there's an upkeep
[01:19:24] involved >> yes but they are natural there's like a the first maybe 10 years they're going to be the most intensive but once the dune is established >> okay >> outside of a major storm event these dunes are pretty resilient >> okay
[01:19:41] So the as as you're showing this relative to the fish house which is a separate part of the presentation right by stopping the flooding at the beach side though don't you do a better job of protect pro protecting the rest of the fish house and thereby I don't know
[01:19:57] maybe not having to you know the cost offset of having to protect the fish house relative to doing it just up front towards the water. Does that make sense? If I could draw it out I do that. I actually think if we don't do this in concert with a fish house
[01:20:12] option that you're just locking the fish house in the water, >> right? >> That's why I'm >> so we need to have a fish house option that either elevates it, moves it, fix, you know. >> Well, I'm saying if if you had it if you had a if you had the barrier closer to the water, you can put a contiguous line
[01:20:28] around the fish house as opposed to pushing it back then trying to draw a wall around the fish house coming down and then moving along the water towards the rest of the beach. Yeah, I see your point. Let's maybe we can move on. >> Let's see what the other
[01:20:44] >> Yeah, the other solutions >> and then I is it fair to say that there's more detail in the final written report >> that answer some of the questions final decisions between different >> many volumes of pages. >> We have full um descriptions for each of those like 12 criteria for each
[01:21:00] alternative. Um >> Okay. >> Sorry, we were just summarizing for all. >> No, no, I'll perfect. >> Do you want me to go to the next slide? >> Yes. >> Yes. Can we actually skip to the C to the fish house solution since we were just talking about the fish house and then we'll go back to Purton Road if that's okay.
[01:21:15] >> Yeah, definitely. >> So for the fish house we looked at four broad options. Um so flood proofing the existing structure. Um so this could be done in a couple ways. Uh wet flood proofing is where you allow flow to go
[01:21:31] into the structure itself. So you have vents in the structure and this allows the water level to equalize. Um so remove some of the hydrostatic pressure. This is actually what FEMA recommends for the the zone that the fish house is located in. Um we had a lot of concerns
[01:21:46] because it's a historic structure. Having it be wet constantly would be probably not good, but it is one we looked at. Um dry flood proofing is probably more of what you're thinking. So making the structure itself um fully impermeable. And then we also looked at just having temporary barriers
[01:22:03] surrounding the whole structure. So similar to what John was talking about and for our analysis we assumed they'd be drop in flood planks. So where you have posts and you kind of drop and hammer in um wide steel plates ahead of a storm. Um we looked at relocating the
[01:22:18] fish house. Um so preserving the structure itself, moving it elsewhere. Um and replacing the structure with either a dune or just a barrier. um but reusing the space for flood protection. Uh we looked at replacing the fish house. Um and then we also looked at
[01:22:35] elevating the fish house or raising it three feet so it was above that flood elevation. Um so next slide. Oh, sorry if you could go back. Um and we just have a mockup here. Um all of these options would have to tie into the section that John was
[01:22:51] talking about, right? Um so for the recommended approach of having a barrier along Humphrey Street, um you can see that we'd have to cover where the red hatched >> um section is. That would be where there'd be a deployable barrier and it would tie into whatever solution was
[01:23:07] done at the fish house. >> Um so we have a large table here, but this is the three iterations of flood proofing that we just talked through. um relocating the fish house, replacing and
[01:23:22] elevating it. Um there were a number of aspects that we looked at with this one. Um because it's a working fish house, we we were thinking about how it would affect commercial fishermen because the storage lockers along the first floor. Um we thought about the National
[01:23:39] Historic Register listing because some of these would cause you to lose that status. Um which I know is important to some. um we have to think about uh permitting of it because it is within a high velocity zone under FEMA. So this is I know we're kind of focusing in a
[01:23:56] small area, but this is a much more complicated one just because of the nature of the building. Um so try to run through this fast, but wet flood proofing. Um we really ended up not being in favor of this one just because um the first floor
[01:24:11] of the building is all storage lockers for fishermen. And then in order to do this one, they'd be having to clear out their space ahead of a storm. Um there could be damage to the structure over time, even if the structure is not being washed away just because of wetting and then drying. Um so even though it's a FEMA recommended one, we don't think
[01:24:28] it's appropriate for this historic structure. Um dry flood proofing is tricky just in the number of openings there are to the existing structure. Um, and because the structure is historic, it's probably not designed to withstand the wave action that we'd expect to see that close to the coast. Um, so also not
[01:24:46] a recommended approach. Um, temporary flood proofing. Um, this is one that we think could work for the area. Um, this would be advantageous in that it's relatively cheap. You just have to buy these temporary barriers. um they could be set up in advance of
[01:25:03] storms um around the structure as long as there's a foundation built for them to connect to. Um it also wouldn't affect the historic designation and are relatively quick to implement. Um disadvantages is you you'd have to be
[01:25:18] prepared. You'd have to go out ahead of a storm to do this. Um >> and they're temporary because they're removable, not because they only have one usage. >> Correct. Yep. You would store them Yep. somewhere in between storm events. Um, relocating the fish house. Um, this
[01:25:37] would obviously eliminate all concerns for the house itself. You'd retain the historic structure. Um, however, you would lose a national historic register listing because that listing is tied to its location along the coastline as a working fish house. Um, it would also be
[01:25:52] costly and you'd have to acquire land to move it to. Um, in talking with stakeholders, this was one that was not recommended. Um, replacing the fish house um, at a first floor elevation above that 13.0
[01:26:09] ft. Um, this again would be challenging to retain historic designation um, even if you retained the structure. Um, and then lastly, we looked at elevating the fish house. Um, so this one would be um
[01:26:25] raising the house 3 ft, building a new foundation below it that acted as a flood barrier. Um, we'd still have those deployable barriers from the area John talked about that would tie directly into the new foundation. Um, build a new ramp system around it, so you'd have
[01:26:41] access to the storage lockers for the fishermen. Um and um so this one is one that would be consistent with the National Historic Register listing. So you could actually maintain that. Um and it is feasible. We
[01:26:57] talked to a contractor in the area who does this. Um it would just be probably by far the most costly. Um so we did cost estimates for the two that really seem feasible in this. Um came up with I think 60 560,000 for the temporary flood proofing. Um and 2.4 4 million for
[01:27:14] raising the fish house. Um, so pretty dramatic difference. Um, but again, it's it's talking about a temporary a solution that requires manpower versus one that allows the fish house to be resilient on its own. Um, >> I know that was a lot of information.
[01:27:29] So, any questions? >> Did you guys consult with the um commercial users to see if elevating it would be feasible? >> Yes, >> we did. Yeah, we met with Ted and um John Engles, I believe was his name. >> Yeah. >> Um part of the solution because of the
[01:27:46] ramping system would broaden the footprint of it. The fish house would have to be moved slightly to the side. Um and you would lose one of the two boat ramps. But talking with John, um it seemed that only one of them is current >> he's now joining. >> Go ahead. >> Uh only one of them is currently in use
[01:28:02] anyways. So that wasn't um a deal breaker. >> Okay. So really there's one solution, right? Out of the six you've got listed here, there's really the temporary flood proofing is your recommendation. Is that what >> Well, I guess there's two if we want to spend $2.4 million,
[01:28:19] >> right? Sure. Uh I guess I would like go back to one of my earlier like first comments was that this study didn't lack the public process and this is obviously a an asset that has means a lot to a lot of people and people look at it different
[01:28:35] differently even within our like committee there were different opinions as to like you know what this building could or should be right so if you're going to spend $2.4 4 million to protect an the commercial interests of you know a small select number of fishermen like
[01:28:51] some people in town like may or may not be moved by that and others that's absolutely critical to their livelihood right so um I I think bringing in broader perspectives and bringing this through a public campaign would be very helpful in terms of like decision-m I
[01:29:07] don't think you can make a decision based on where we are today right so I just wanted >> right I think that that's the piece that is kind of our wheelhouse house, right? Is that that relationship with the public and understanding what their feelings are? >> Absolutely. >> I think we'd, you know, um trust you to
[01:29:23] give us the actual technical recommendations and let us handle the >> the kind of, you know, stakeholder alignment and all that. So, that's kind of what what I'm thinking anyway. >> Yeah. >> And I will say all these solutions are aimed at protecting the fish house. Um I
[01:29:40] think regardless of which solution you go with, you can that barrier can be built behind the fish house. Um you can provide protection for the whole town. You can just have a three-foot wall behind it. Um so this kind of can function independently.
[01:29:56] >> Um so this is not necessarily a risk to the whole town. It's just really what do you want to do about this building? >> Thank you. >> I guess regardless of what we decide for the fish house, we need to do something about Puritan Road though. So we want to go back to zone B.
[01:30:12] >> Yes. Thank you. Yes. Um, so zone B, Puritan Road, my colleagues were kind enough to give me the most politically sensitive stretch of shoreline to talk to. So, thank you. Um, I say that because obviously we include several um,
[01:30:28] private properties along the stretch of road that are that are right right at the waterfront. And so the alternatives that we uh, assessed here um, were there were technically four. They're
[01:30:44] They're basically two, but essentially we have a a wall either be it either a steel sheep pile wall or a concrete seaw wall uh or a beach and dune combination. Uh
[01:31:00] one of them being a 30ft um width of beach or you might you might hear me call it a burm sometimes. uh that's the flat part of the beach that people recreate on or a 10- foot wide burm which obviously is a either these both of these are very narrow beaches, right?
[01:31:17] Um so we took a look at each one of those the cross-sections on the previous slide. I probably pointed out a little bit um that shows you kind of the alignment that we would be looking at. >> John >> is now exiting. >> I was boring him to death apparently.
[01:31:34] >> All right, >> don't take it personally. We don't Um so all of this is on private property. There is the existing seaw wall that's there now that is privately owned. It's built of um you know just stone. So we would be either reinforcing
[01:31:50] that building just immediately in front of it or or building up or elevating uh portions of it to a consistent uh elevation. That's the other thing. The consistent elevation is really important here because these are private walls that have been built, you know, hundred
[01:32:05] years ago maybe. Um, they're all at different elevations and so we want to make sure that's a nice consistent, you know, that 13 ft magic number that we've been talking about. So if we go back to the the next slide um so when we compare them um from
[01:32:22] benefits and and challenges or drawbacks the the nature-based solutions um you know the beach dune and um burm combination has um the benefit of being a nature-based solution and and not just
[01:32:38] nature-based for naturebased sake but also uh opens up for grant opportunities a lot of times that you can find opportunities through CCM and um and others that can that are more lenient towards uh greenbased solutions as far as grants uh for funding and
[01:32:54] construction. Uh the trade-off there of course is that there is an O and M uh need and after large storms we would have to go back and and place sand to reinforce that template. That is sort of the the what we'd call the design template.
[01:33:10] Um the 30-foot beach is basically the same flavor except that when as far as longevity is concerned, the wider the beach, the longer uh it's going to stay there. So erosion is sort of an everpresent pressure at the shoreline.
[01:33:26] So um you just buy you buy yourself a little bit more time. The two versions of the seaw wall are basically the same as far as what um you know the drawbacks are concerned and the benefits that they provide. The only real difference is the material cost and
[01:33:43] we find that sheep pile seaw walls are tend to be more expensive just because of the price of the steel or or if you put composite in there that might be make it more expensive. So of those four options we landed on the raised concrete seaw wall as the highest scoring solution. Um and uh
[01:34:01] let's see if we go one more slide please. Uh this is just sort of what that alignment would look like um in theory. And so these can you know this sh this could shift a little bit. We're more or less trying to follow the existing alignment of the the seaw wall
[01:34:16] that's there now. So we're trying to minimize the amount of you know construction that would need to take place. And of course uh this would require some sort of buy in from the folks that live there right. Um, so that is uh that that lead that that
[01:34:32] is zone B. Um, if we could skip to >> I just have a quick question. >> Oh yeah, sure. Of course. >> Because it's a uh we'll call it a public private partnership with if we um raised the seaw wall and made it one contiguous
[01:34:48] um concrete structure. Um, number one, are we allowed to do that without p without the private property owner's permission? I would assume we are not.
[01:35:03] >> And if we do do it, how do we put the onus on the property owner to maintain it if we paid for it? Like, are we liable for its failure? Are we what is what are the legal ramifications of >> the town doing it?
[01:35:19] I don't know if I can speak to that intelligently. I can guess, but I don't want to put myself. >> Okay. Take could take the seaw walls >> by an agree agreeable eminent domain. >> Are you offering? >> Yes, I would offer that. Um, but you
[01:35:36] have to you have to understand that some of the seaw walls are owned and then percentage of the beach is owned in front of it. So, it's not just the seaw wall, but it's also the land on the on the on the beach side. So, some of the properties are a little bit different, but >> yeah, >> they're not all like that though, right?
[01:35:52] >> No, they're not all like that. So, >> but a lot of most of them, I would dare to say, are. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So, that would be regardless of which approach here we would take or could take, >> they would all have some component of going on private property. >> Right. >> Right. So, I I think legally that could
[01:36:09] all be worked out. I would I would think that if you're presenting something that would benefit the town by raising that and locking up water coming out onto Puritan Road and coming out at the end of Puritan Road and also by on the left
[01:36:25] side there protecting the fish house, >> right? >> By sealing something in there, that would be a major benefit to that whole area. >> I mean, it's mutually beneficial to all of those property owners and their property to prevent the flooding. So, I would assume that there would be sort of a quidd proquo.
[01:36:41] >> To your point about maintenance, and I can only speak from personal experience owning one of those little parcels >> on the map here that it's not on a seaw wall, but right in front of it. Um, most of the folks I know over here maintain their own seaw walls. So, it would be >> you'd be changing the height of the
[01:36:57] maintenance, right? But >> they're already maintaining it to some to varying degrees. >> Okay. >> Yeah. One of the things we've learned here though is though, you know, the smallest uh uh break or the smallest ch weak link in the chain exposes the entire town to >> and and the rest of that entire
[01:37:13] community particularly to flooding. >> Yeah, that's interesting. >> It's I would love to understand KP's position on that. >> Okay, we can look into it. Does do any of these solutions require pilings that
[01:37:29] need to go down towards bedrock just to keep them secure from the hydraulic forces of of the ocean? >> Uh we haven't done that level of design here. Um I can tell you that typically these sort of projects don't there you
[01:37:46] you need to assess for scour and make sure that you're protected down to the design level of scour at the toe of the structure. or so have you picked >> scour means just for >> is that's you know it's a fair question um as waves are are kind of battering a
[01:38:01] wall if you will um the where the wall meets the sand at the at the toe of the structure that has that will that elevation will lower will drop down over the course of a storm because that wave energy has to go somewhere and so what
[01:38:18] it will do instead of breaking your wall it eats out the the turbulence eats out the material at the bottom of the wall and what usually a rule of thumb we'll say is um the design wave height in incident to the wall is typically what we would expect for a depth of scour for
[01:38:35] that sort of structure. So if you say like a 3-ft wave or is it just the right number out 3ft wave then you need to make sure that your wall is at least 3 feet plus probably a little bit of bonus down below the depth of sand so that you're able to um withstand that scour.
[01:38:51] Um geotechnical engineers would take a deeper look at that uh no pun intended to uh figure out how much further down they would need to go just to make sure that the uh structure was not going to >> topple over from the dirt. >> You don't think it would have to go all the way down a bedrock though? >> I don't expect so. No.
[01:39:08] >> John, from your past piling experience here, that was pretty pretty deep, right? >> Yeah. So the the violence the bedrock is really for vertical forces because you're you're transferring that load downward. Here we got forces coming at
[01:39:24] us horizontally. So you're more you have to have a wider foundation base. First of all, it's a concrete structure. You're not going to have to do that. But you probably have a wider footing with a keyhole in it to prevent over topping of the wall and again prevent against that scour. So, I think you'd have to worry about going bedrock because Yeah. Well,
[01:39:40] it's it's pretty variable in there, but I don't think you would get deep enough to get to that and you wouldn't have to deal with those forces. >> Okay. Thanks. >> So, what you're recommending here is you're recommending making the seaw wall go down uh by the entrance there and
[01:39:56] then putting in deployable flood barriers all the way along the side. But are you also recommending increasing that the height of the seaw wall that's up against Puritan road on here? >> We took a look at that actually. I think
[01:40:11] it was high enough already to meet that design flood elevation. So >> yeah, when I asked you guys this when you presented this to our stakeholder group, you had said that was like I want to say 13.2. It was like just over because visually I was thinking well how does that relate? >> And based on the conversation that we
[01:40:27] had, it was pretty similar. Great. >> Uh, so let's see if we skip ahead to slide 19. Oh, perfect. Thank you very much. Um, so this gets into the uh what we've been
[01:40:43] calling the performance modeling. Um, that takes a look at Oh, sorry, previous slide. You're stealing my thunder. So what we do is we take each of these
[01:40:59] alternatives and we will run them through a computer simulation and each of these simulations is going to look at um three different scenarios uh based off of the peak water surface elevation uh during a given storm. So a a 100year
[01:41:16] or a 1% uh 2030 a 1% 2070 and then uh a 500y year or 2% 2070. Um those elevation and peak elevations off that top right corner of our slide
[01:41:31] here. You can see those kind of level off right around just under 10 ft, just under 13 ft and then uh just over 13 feet. I can't see the decimal from here, but it was I think 13.6 or something. >> Nine. >> 3.9.
[01:41:46] >> Yeah, >> 13.9. Thank you very much. Um the alternatives that we looked at was first um just alternative one, which is just that white alignment that you see on the map to the left. That's the area
[01:42:02] in and around the fish house and the parking lot that's there. Um, alternative two uh is the is the affformentioned uh fish house area plus the private seaw wall area along Puritan road that zone B. And then um as an
[01:42:19] alternative three uh we kept both of those and then also incorporated um and this is a little bit of foreshadowing but we incorporated um some elevated um portions of Wyatt Wales and Eisman's Beach. And what we did there because
[01:42:34] it's it was sort of the design of anything like that was outside of our scope. We just basically raised that portion of those roads up to I think 17 ft something just large enough that would everything gets blocked. >> So you raise the roads.
[01:42:50] >> Yes. And numerically we raised the roads. Yes. But it's not something that is part of we're not we're not proposing anything. I'm just wanted to actually you'll see it on our next slide. I should I probably should have led with that. If you go to the next slide,
[01:43:06] uh we see the results of our uh modeling for each of those different scenarios. Um so starting at the top left, we have the existing condition and this is the peak water surface elevation that we're showing or I guess the peak water depth
[01:43:22] that we're showing. And you those white arrows are indicating where the water is coming from. They're coming from over um Fisherman's Beach and then of course over um Cassidy Park to the right there and then even more so or just as much I should say at Wales and Isman. Um when
[01:43:40] we do this for the other alternatives uh one and two uh the results are virtually the same. So if we're looking at this really one of these things is not like the other, right? And then what we'll see here at alternative three, um there
[01:43:56] virtually is no flooding. And what this tells us here is that we can we can block Fisherman's Beach through the raising of private seaw walls through fortification of Fish House. Um but there is an alternative flood path and
[01:44:11] that is over Wales and Eisman's Beach and that's and that's basically the um you know that portion of Puritan Road that's a little bit lower. These are extreme events. This is the 20 uh 20 >> 70
[01:44:27] >> Thank you. 2070 100year event. This is the one that showed really the distinction between these. What's the current height of the uh flood walls along Puritan Road behind Eisman's and Wales? >> Along P along Wales and Eisman
[01:44:43] >> the green that you added for good measure. >> Yeah. Uh those are close to I want to say 11 ft or so. There's no there's no walls there, right? It's just it's the road. So we didn't include any wall. >> No, there's a wall seaw wall.
[01:44:58] >> Oh, okay. So >> all the way across the coast there. So >> Okay. So that's >> steps >> go up. >> But there are some lowlying areas for sure. >> The lowlying areas. >> Yeah. The grass, the drive that comes into it. But >> so why why make that area 17 versus 13
[01:45:16] when we were talking about 13 the whole time? It was just we wanted to just separate it from the design elements of of the fisherman's beach study and just make it something that was just a full blockage
[01:45:32] of um water at that area. And and the reason and the reason that it could be something different over there is because whales and eyesmans is more exposed to the open ocean and so 13 ft would probably be a little bit uh low
[01:45:47] over on that side. >> Is there an elevation change? >> Is I guess um can we could you guys show us an alt three which has it at 13 ft? >> Why? Like >> I just I just wonder how cuz you know we've been talking about 13 and if I
[01:46:04] mean to Wayne's point not to belabor Wayne's point but he was saying why not higher. >> I think they >> but then you went higher. >> Isn't all two showing the 13T to answer your question? I >> No, it is. But but if you look Okay. So
[01:46:19] So alt one is just the fisherman's parking lot. Alt two includes Puritan Road and the you know in the um existing seaw wall along Puritin road but alt three includes 17 ft along Eisman's and Wales. >> Right. And is that the elevation that
[01:46:36] you found that you needed to totally block >> that? We use 17 because you were just trying to block it off. >> 17 was just a conservative estimate. It could have just been it could have been just as much at 13 and a half or something. And we just wanted we didn't want to spend budget figuring out what
[01:46:52] that design elevation would be over there because we just wanted to assess the viability of oils and eyesman as an alternative flood path. >> Yeah. >> Got it. So it's slightly outside of the scope, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I get I get that it's outside the scope, but I guess I'm trying to disprove Wayne's point that it shouldn't
[01:47:07] be 17 ft everywhere. And you maybe just helped his argument by saying, "Oh, if we did 17 ft here, you'd block this path also and then you have no color change because there's essentially no flooding because we've sort of bur made a barrier for that whole C area." So, I'm just
[01:47:23] curious what it looks like if that area we're only 13, >> you know, and then why not? >> So, it's a Yeah. So it's a little bit um uh misleading the way the way that we've labeled this is we have these white arrows are showing the direction the the
[01:47:39] directionality of the flow. Uh the while the results of these other three colorful quadrants look very similar because they end up with the same or similar peak water surface elevation >> um ultimately the the way that those
[01:47:54] portions of the town get wet are very different. Mhm. >> So in alternative one uh for example where we have um just the fish house protected, we still see water coming up
[01:48:10] and over uh those homes adjacent to uh Puritan Road behind Fisherman's Beach. Um which is kind of what those white arrows are showing at Fisherman's. If we look at alternative uh two, um those areas still get wet, but that
[01:48:27] it's because water has actually come through Wales and Eisman's to the south and has kind of worked its way up Humphrey Street and back. So B totally get it. So basically what you're saying is that if we don't do anything in Wales and Eisman, the rest of it is it doesn't make a difference if we do anything
[01:48:42] else. We need to address Wales and Eisman regardless if it's 13 ft, 17 ft, whatever it is, that study needs to come next. >> That's correct. Richmond is then just going to flag whales. >> That's correct. During during this during this extreme event which is a 1% 2070 storm. Yes. >> And this is a 1% where previously we
[01:48:59] were designing to the point 2 the 500 year >> the even more. >> So can we see a performance model of that? >> Wait. >> So I think it's inside the scope of what we asked them to do here. No, but I mean
[01:49:14] we we planned for this all the plans prior talk about this event that we're planning for, but then we modeled to a worse event. >> No, this is actually more likely. This 100year storm is more likely 1% chance
[01:49:30] rather than 0.2%. >> Got it. I thought it was flipped. Sorry. >> Okay. >> And just to clarify, >> probabilities are worse in this case. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> In the last scenario, it's still 13 ft along fish in speech. Yeah. >> Right. >> Thank you.
[01:49:45] >> Yes. >> Yes. Y >> sorry. Just want to make sure that's a good clarification. >> Um so with that, uh >> so we can't save the pump house without doing the entire road is what you're saying. So Mary Ellen's point originally
[01:50:01] is while it was not within the scope of your ask which I understand if we don't basically water will always find a path unless we block it. So if we don't block it all
[01:50:16] >> we're probably not going to have any of those assets. The original study, the original study that was done was very clear where our most vulnerable place is in the section of uh not the fish, not not Fert, not the fish house, but over
[01:50:32] by >> Philips Park, >> Wales and Phillips. That's our most vulnerable area. So, in order for us to protect our most vulnerable area and plus some, we have to do the whole corridor, >> right? I would I would think that's the the update to this to this study.
[01:50:49] >> I guess I I would say you can protect the pump station as a single building using temporary flood barriers. You don't you know like if that was the only asset you were concerned about. >> You could do that pretty easily with temporary flood barriers. There's not a
[01:51:04] lot of flood pathways into that building. Um really the charter for this whole project was to look comprehensively at the coastline um and like what you know looking for a a comprehensive approach to protecting everything right so that's kind of what this report is is doing but you can
[01:51:20] absolutely you know protect one asset separately through you know temporary mechanisms >> what what was the risk assessment over as you get east along right along Phillips Preston even towards the Marblehead line
[01:51:35] >> what was the I know that's a little bit higher in elevation. Is that is that what was that risk assessment lower because that elevation is above 13 ft? I think the um there was fewer assets town municipal owned assets I think in those in the area. Um Palmer
[01:51:52] Pond is a pretty big percentage of the flood area on Philips Beach. Um but I think that first graphic kind of showed the the extent and depth um page one. Yeah, >> there are some dark green areas here
[01:52:07] >> which is uh >> Oh, thank you. Yes, >> by Philip Speech right there. >> Yep. >> Keep going backwards if you're Yeah, that one. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, this is a lot to digest.
[01:52:23] Mhm. >> One of one of the things in common that I see throughout here, and it goes back to my original observation at the beginning of your presentation, was the fish house remains in the flood zone. >> Mhm. >> As opposed to being the option number one, which was
[01:52:39] building the structure on the beach side and then locking it up with the temporary barriers, thus keeping the fish house out of the flood zone. Does that resonate with anybody or >> using flood zone as in protected area?
[01:52:56] >> No, as in like what's going to be flooded. >> So there's the fish the fish house is sitting as it kind of cuts off, right? The fish house is not protected unless you mitigate what you were talking about before, which is a separate zone around the fish house
[01:53:11] itself as opposed to being inclusive along the beach line with, you know, openings that can be temporarily closed off through mitigation or not barrier devices. So, you're saying like take that blue line, bring it to the actual uh front of
[01:53:28] the parking, carry it all the way across to the front of the fish house and actually close it off and then bring it back up alongside to the private parcels. >> Right. We're like cutting. >> So, if you if you just go take the seaw wall and go, are you saying take the seaw wall? >> Take the black line at the bottom. Take
[01:53:45] the blue and pull it forward. Yeah. Pull it forward. Whichever. >> Right. Which was that was an option. It was alternate one but but it was frowned against because of I don't know if it was the cost or the >> I think John had mentioned there was ongoing cost of maintenance that was more significant
[01:54:02] >> but you you you you have >> you solve the problem >> you sol you sol it's more of a solvable problem >> a full problem and not just pieces of it >> kind of let me kind of take this I think to the next step if we did raise seaw wall along the beach understanding the
[01:54:18] higher maintenance cost, >> right? >> Does that minimize, limit, alternate the expense of the fish fish house specific? >> This is what I was trying to ask originally. >> Yeah. >> Um so if you >> or eliminate them, >> if you did that, the the amount of
[01:54:35] temporary barriers you need in front of the fish house would be smaller than if you did a perimeter back to um Humphrey Street, >> right? Um, I think John's point was because of the location, um, being sure because sandashing back, um, installing
[01:54:51] those temporary barriers in a sealed way would be more difficult at the beachfront, which is why we were leaning towards the Humphrey Street alignment. >> Um, but I do see your point. >> To be fair, what's any more different about the difficulty of that than it is along the other quarter mile of stretch
[01:55:08] along Puritan Road and even on Eisman's Eisman? Maybe that's a let's just stick stick on the Puritan road area. What's any different than that other than you have an existing seaw wall there already that you would be building upon or you would >> as we discussed minutes ago you'd be creating whatever you needed to create.
[01:55:24] This is specifically for the deployable barriers. >> So you're not using the temporary deployable barriers. You're building seaw wall there. So it's a little so you're building a more permanent structure not meant to be temporarily removed and that's >> fair installed. So there'd be some more reliability to that permanent structure.
[01:55:39] >> Great. Yeah. >> Yeah. So the Puritan road that was all permanent. >> So the real >> alternative, right, Wayne's suggestion of if the seaw wall is on the beach side and then the temporary barriers were closer to where the pier stands now on
[01:55:56] the seawward side of the fish house. The con for that is there's more significant maintenance concerns and upkeep in terms of cost and operations, but the efficacy is similar. >> Yep. You'd have to ahead of installing those, you'd have to make sure that they're clear of stick sand. Um because
[01:56:14] those have to be affixed to a foundation. >> Oh, got it. Okay. >> So, but there's less >> deployable, but you can't >> go ahead. >> Sorry. Deployable, you can't just put them anywhere. You actually do install like a prefab foundation that they're attached to and bolted in. So, uh on the
[01:56:32] asphalt side, it's obviously much easier to keep that seal. Whereas if you're on the beach side, traffic going over it, you're going to get sanded on that rubber all the time. So it's just long-term effectiveness and and facility of deploying it. But it is something we can continue to look at. Um, you know,
[01:56:47] if that's if that's the way the town wants to go. >> That explanation is really helpful. Thank you. >> The efficacy is not the same in that day-to-day operation, >> right? >> Yeah. I want to be very clear because it's requiring expertise that we may or may not have at the time of that storm.
[01:57:04] Makes sense. >> Okay. So, what's some next steps here, Nick, for this? >> We are waiting for the final report. >> Okay. >> Yep. So, the final report um I think we
[01:57:20] provided to Marcy. I think she's done it on >> Marcy. >> How long did it take to do this report? I was going to say we we've received comments from Martha Schmidt's committee and if there's any other comments from other committees like we're kind of
[01:57:36] holding to see if there's any more comments coming in from you know DBW and um Harbor Waterfront that kind of stuff. So um I think they're passing comments to Mars you shall pass them to us. So um anything that comes out of that we'll update the report. So it isn't it's an like a pretty advanced draft. Um, so, so
[01:57:54] that's once we address or get receive comments and address them all, then we'll finalize it. >> Is this is this up on the website in a very easily findable place? >> No, because it's not in a final form. >> No, the draft. Yeah. >> No, >> no, it's it's not complete. So, it would
[01:58:11] not yet be released. >> So, if we want public comment, why would we not It doesn't matter. Why would we not put it up in state explicitly draft looking for public comment? >> We We haven't invited public comment yet. No, >> we've invited commentary from committees, stakeholder stakeholder
[01:58:28] committees. >> Yeah. >> But I but I think that they started the presentation to say that what this whole process was lacking was public input. But that was not part of the scope by which we could afford to hire them for this process. So we need to finalize a
[01:58:45] draft and then engage public comment >> for us to engage >> for us to engage public comment outside of Kleinfelder and so that we can do something with this information. >> And what this will inform is any further MVP grants or other CCM or anyone else
[01:59:02] that might make available funds to municipalities to go towards implementation. These are all things that are not built into our capital plan. Coastal zone management is CZM. I apologize. And then >> No, I know >> MVP. I didn't know if you knew. >> No, actually we were just talking about at the CARK meeting um climate action
[01:59:18] meeting this week which was looking at the uh >> vulnerability >> MVP and CZM grants were being combined >> into a one-stop shop that actually there's a on September 15th. There's a webinar that the group is >> Yeah, I think EA actually has all their grants in a one-stop shop.
[01:59:34] >> Yeah, it's not just them. So, >> but that's a next step type of thing. I I I'd still like to see um draft or otherwise I'm not saying necessarily that uh the select board has to uh engage in public comment, right? That's a separate story, but um certainly um there can be a form for public comment
[01:59:50] to the draft. Um and those public comments can be possibly included if necessary into the final report. I I don't I don't see why that's necessarily a bad idea. Yes, I I agree that we could have public hearings in the future for public comment. Of
[02:00:07] course, I I welcome that, but um I I still don't see why uh a draft report shouldn't be available to anyone who requests it. It's a draft. There may be things that uh aren't seen, aren't known uh by people in the community. Uh, and if we
[02:00:23] don't do that, at least I'd like to see um the two committees that have the most fundamental uh stake in this, which would be Harbor Waterfront and Climate Action, to have a vote amongst them to advise us as advisory committees to advise us uh whether or not this report is complete before we sign off on it.
[02:00:41] >> My my committee, Harvard Waterfront, has it. So, >> yeah. So, we've been working on this for how long are we? It's three years now. Does anybody know? Do you know, Nick? Do you know? >> I don't. >> He's the least likely here.
[02:00:56] >> It was two It was two grant cycles ago that we were unsuccessful. So, um, so probably two years, I think. >> Well, it was, uh, I think it was the the, um, it was around when Doug Thompson had his magic markers and was
[02:01:12] going to the board because we had to identify ARPA money. >> ARPA money. >> Is that what we we used ARPA money? >> We did. We did use ARPA money. Yeah. So I'm saying we're over two and a half years. >> We It's been some time. >> So the reason I'm asking that is this is it's been a long process and I just want to know what's our target date to get
[02:01:28] something going here so that we can be applying for some of these grants because there is new money going in for grants. I think um I know I went to a a meeting with Doug and several people at the Fish House and we were talking to the chair of one of
[02:01:47] the larger committees. >> Who was it? >> Seport economic. >> No, it wasn't Seport Economic. It was um somebody else. >> So, um >> just the bottom line is there's more money available now. Um I know Governor
[02:02:03] Healey was putting more money towards this this endeavor. So, I what what I want to find out is when's the date? What's our date of getting this completed and and uh being able to apply for this these monies? I guess I just have two quick on Wayne's public
[02:02:20] feedback. Uh I I caution that we not that Kleinfelder can't be wrong or that public can't give input, but I don't wish the public to sway necessarily
[02:02:36] scientific recommendation. There's a there's a community input part of it which I understand that you know they've given a certain level based on the way the way that they're waiting things and if we choose to move that weighted average to something else because of community input that's up to
[02:02:54] the community and I have no problem doing that. I just don't want to necessarily sway this sway that in this process. But I do want to caution that we don't do what we did with the peer and go straight to get funding that the community doesn't
[02:03:10] necessarily wholeheartedly support or understand. And I I want to action things that we as a community feel will come to fruition because I fear, you know, going back to multiple entities and asking for
[02:03:26] funds and them getting us getting funds and then not not being able to sort of really see something to its finalization hurts us in the end for getting funds in the future. So I want to make sure that what we ask for we're going to do. Um so that's just my two cents.
[02:03:43] But this isn't even asking us to do anything. >> No, we're just getting >> I I just I just I was just cautioning going out to get grant funding to do something when we don't really have a path forward about what we are going to do. That's the part that I >> So in terms of delivering the final report, you're waiting our our feedback
[02:03:59] from our appointed advisory committees, right? So that's something that Marzy and I can work with as >> the representatives to make sure we get that back to then to Mary Ellen's point to get the final. >> Well, those are advisory committees. So those advisory committees should be
[02:04:16] advising the select board. Shouldn't it be the select the select board should be the ones off, you know, okaying the final report, not these advisory committees, >> right? I'm not sure that these advisory committees should have direct um I don't want to say influence or real contact with Kleinfelder who's providing us with
[02:04:31] the science and the data. I'm not sure I'm understanding how the two coingle or why they would. Right. Because to Mary Ellen's point, they're advisory committees to us. >> Sure. >> Right. And it's just Right. >> So I don't know what the flow of information is back and forth between Kleinfelder and these committees, but I
[02:04:48] don't think our committee should be actively influencing or involved with their report. Right. I I want to see the scientific facts that tell us what we need to do >> from a Kleinfelder perspective. >> There's more than scientific fact here. There's evaluation and analysis based upon priorities in this report that is
[02:05:04] more that it actually leads to effective based solutions. So I do think that these committees have um a lot of consideration considering that they affect the direct the direct impact to to everything that
[02:05:22] these committees study on a daily basis on a on a regular basis. >> But these committees act as a as to Mary Ellen's point advisories to the select board. >> Should we not use them as advisories? >> No. So they should be advising advising
[02:05:37] the same thing. We just want to make sure we're all working in 10, right? >> We're just working together here, not on separate teams. >> Right. I think I think one question I don't want to see advisory committees just working with theel Kleinfelder and the I don't want to just say Kleinfelder when you have Woods, but you know
[02:05:54] influence the outcome of the report, right? That's not what their their advice should be coming here, >> right? >> So, do you with all of that in mind because I do think this is four white arrows all pointing at the same same thing. Yeah. like do you two want to talk to your committees and you can
[02:06:09] >> share something with the board in the first meeting in October to give you time to get something >> on the calendar with each of them or >> does that should be a recommendation right so my committee um our next meeting we're taking up discussion of the report and the findings >> great okay
[02:06:25] >> perfect and climate action had already done it >> to >> you know if there's anything that they want to bring forward to the select board then >> I will do that but >> great >> that is what we're doing >> and I have feedback back from Martha from client action with that includes from most of the committee individual
[02:06:41] inputs. >> Okay. So then I can synthesize or bring together all the feedback that you two gather and you can work with Marzy and I directly to get it >> so that you all can move to a final final as opposed to a final draft. >> Yep. Yeah, sounds good. >> I just have one quick question on the um
[02:06:58] the barrier what do you call those barrier things? The >> flood barriers >> um >> deployable >> temporary barriers. How long have they been in the market? How long have they been used? And how effective are they? >> You know, over how about in Europe?
[02:07:16] >> Um, so we moved the mic. Oh, >> so the barriers that come to mind I think are um is it Aquagate? Aquagate. Aqua Fence. Thank you very much. >> Fence. >> Thanks, John. Yeah, Aquafence is a
[02:07:32] popular um brand that's very well established in the United States as well as Europe. >> How long have they been in the market? >> I don't know off the top of my head. I would have to go to their website. >> What are they called? >> Aqua fence. >> Google it. >> Um I do know that there
[02:07:48] >> I do know that they're used around the country um including um you know valuable assets like hospitals um and you know uh you know public buildings. So it's not some it's not like a one-off. I think they use they deploy them in Boston at um the aquarium stop.
[02:08:06] >> Yeah. >> For the W for the MBTA. >> Okay. Yeah. At the MBTA station there at the top of the >> Yeah, the aquarium. >> Pictures in the report. >> They deploy them there. I think Massport deploys them around some of their facilities. >> Interesting.
[02:08:22] >> They first deployed in 2008 at Mount Vernon. >> Oh, that's an important asset, Mariel. Oh, sorry. Not that was not the first deployment. That was a notable deployment. >> Did you say a notable deployment? >> A notable deployment. >> No, Vernon.
[02:08:38] >> They're founded 99. >> Yeah. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. And I believe, you know, there are different companies. Aquafen, Aqua Gator is one of them. Um, but a lot of them they'll fold up and they, you know, you can stow them and then they you pull them out and then you
[02:08:53] can deploy them. And so it's something that's like a minimum footprint when you're not using it is the idea. >> Okay. >> And then they linked what I think they linked together. >> I think we estimated for the fish house um it would be about 4 hours to deploy
[02:09:10] >> if you did a full perimeter. >> That's a long time. >> It's long, but it'd be relatively infrequent events. >> And that was based upon the hump the the street >> all the way around the house. all the way around. >> That was the maximum of
[02:09:26] >> Well, that's good to know. >> Based on a two person team, so >> Oh, Chino's got way more than two people. >> Gino can do it faster. >> Okay, >> great. >> So, we have next steps. >> Next step is you guys are going to give some feedback. We're going to talk about this again in October and Kleinfelder
[02:09:43] can go home. I I would just urge um if staff Marzy and Nick if possible to on like I said September 15th 11 a.m. there's the environmental climate onetop grant program that was the merging of the um
[02:09:58] of the CCM and MVP programs together. Um you can maybe that's helpful because that's our next steps is for future grant programming. >> Okay. >> Thank you John. the um
[02:10:13] >> Thank you very very much. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night. >> Thank you everyone. >> All right, we're gonna move on to select board. Oh, should we go back to the charter commission? >> Yeah, >> let's go back to charter. >> Oh, yeah. >> Let's go do that. Oh, yeah. Um, one just
[02:10:30] quick takeaway from this particular conversation, Nick, is if you could work a little bit more in concert getting this information um, to us before it goes out to >> the public. >> The public. Um, which is not your fault,
[02:10:46] but some other committees had it in advance and then it went out in the papers and we all heard about it. So, um, would be great if those advisory committees could advise us before they advise the tides or the item. That would be helpful. No offense.
[02:11:03] Um, all right. Moving back to the charter review update, which >> you have to remember the item attends all these meetings. >> The item is present for those who don't. >> Um, okay. So, we were talking back to
[02:11:21] the committee conversation. >> Um, >> I think Marielen had >> Mary Ellen wanted to open up for discussion post. >> So, my question is um did a did we ever get the information from David David on on what all the committees were
[02:11:38] recommending for charter review? >> I do not yet have that. >> I had asked >> we thought it might be with D. >> Diane Diane has it. We've been talking about this for a while, but has anybody >> Well, I'm not to answer that. >> We do not have them right now. No, that's to answer your question. We know where they may be, but no, we do not
[02:11:54] have them. >> Okay. So, the last time we had a charter review, we had three people. >> Correct. That's my understanding. Three people. Peter Spelios, Jeff Beerman, and Mary, who Mary's named after, Mary, the first female commodor
[02:12:11] of the Swamp Scott. So, we had three people. They went over at public meetings. Um, I'm just wondering I I think there's a couple things here. Is are we looking at making this bigger than what it needs to be? Do we really need to have five or seven people? Can
[02:12:27] we just go with three people? Um, if we've already done the research two years ago on what each committee feels that needs to be adjusted within the charter of under their purview, are we already partially there? I mean, I've
[02:12:43] brought it up twice. My biggest concern on the charter, other than, you know, tweaking some of the little stuff that's not really relevant. Um, but my biggest concern is that the moderator chooses the finance committee and the
[02:13:00] capital improvement committee. And I think that that to me is something that needs to be addressed um you know very quickly and not wait for several years to address it. I mean as of right now we have a moderator who is
[02:13:17] a moderator is on the capital improvement committee and is the chairman of that committee. And I don't think that's good governance. And I think the number one goal here is to make sure we have good governance and we're following, you know, following a charter. So I think my my point here is
[02:13:34] I don't want to make this long and drawn out if we've already done a good amount of the work and we already have a decent charter. So just want to share my opinion on this because I want to get to making some changes in the charter sooner rather than later. So is there
[02:13:50] anything else in that comes to the forefront that anybody else is really dug in looking to see in terms of changes to the charter? Is there anything else that comes to mind? We wouldn't know other than seeing the minute seeing the information that David
[02:14:05] you know has cor collected. I know that from the committees that I was a liazison to um I know the board of assessors had a couple little tweaks um and that was it. No other committee had anything big. Everybody was pretty >> Did you all engage the community in that process as well?
[02:14:21] >> No, >> no, >> no. I don't think No, no, >> no. We just we had just opened sort of the conversation with we should do this. Let's reach out to committees and see if they have feedback first, collect it, synthesize it, and then go out to public
[02:14:37] comment. >> How long ago was that? >> David was chair. So, >> yeah. So, three two or three almost three years ago. >> Yeah. And I would I guess while I hear your point, imagine this sport's comments three years ago, they're likely today going to change
[02:14:53] because boards change, opinions change, people in charge change, ideology changes, philosophy changes. So I while I agree that there's an urgency maybe for some things and that doesn't mean we can't propose a charter change as the board, can we not?
[02:15:10] >> Sure. >> So yeah, we can. I mean we just it's a town meeting warrant article and so we could engage this fully comprehensive process now but still suggest a warrant article to ch to and say that we
[02:15:26] >> believe in the sake of good governance that that be needs to happen outside of this other process. >> It is an option. >> So is it fair to say from a process perspective we could appoint a local charter review committee to go do their thing and they would come advise the select board. we would adopt it or
[02:15:43] change it or whatever before it would go on to the next step in the process. >> Yes. Yes. >> Previously, historically in Swanson Scott, that has been done with an article at town meeting >> to create that review committee. >> So the first So first you go to town meeting to get the committee created.
[02:15:59] >> Correct. >> Then you panel the committee. You seat the committee and then you I mean to Mary Ellen's point that would take years. >> I don't think I don't think the charter says >> I'm not saying I didn't say the charter. historically after talking to someone who had drafted the charter.
[02:16:14] >> Yeah. So >> he has it under good advisement. >> But is there a mechanism to >> We don't have to do that to keep >> We absolutely don't. You're absolutely right. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I think Danielle, we can we can we can if we all agree that something is important enough we can put forth a
[02:16:30] warrant article and ask town meeting to consider the change as we deem it necessary. Do we have a legal opinion about the role of moderator as chair, moderator and committee member? Have we sol we asked for? >> We did right after he was elected and
[02:16:45] >> okay and they have said that's all >> there's not a conflict of interest. >> Okay. >> It's not a it's not against any other >> no statute >> any statute there's no statute there. So to the presentation you had here Nick with the anticipated timeline of this
[02:17:00] getting started this fall and then by the end of the summer we would probably have >> the idea with this timeline would be next a year from this December we were coming to town meeting with changes. >> Okay so >> unless we felt strongly about >> 15 months from now.
[02:17:16] >> Does this group think that that's too far? >> Yeah. I mean not not for every change. I think I think Yeah. Well, you are the chair. >> I think between Danielle, Maryanne, and I, I think that's what we were sort of hinting at that it feels >> like a long time. Am I wrong?
[02:17:32] >> It does feel like a long time. But I mean, I think there are some other things that I'd like to see evaluated, at least studied in the charter, which is how our board of health is set up um and what they have in terms of influence on their own director. That that's the
[02:17:50] test case for why I said in three years I think committees have changed because three years ago the board of health might have had >> no comment but maybe they might have comment now there are different set of folks who might have different thoughts and feelings. So >> okay so one area you'd like to see
[02:18:06] >> um >> you have other thoughts. Yeah, there was another thing I was >> one thing that Marzy has brought up in the past is the composition of the planning board >> to for site plan special permit to be granted which almost every project in town needs. You need four out of five members. >> Oftent times over my last two years as
[02:18:22] chair we had one if not more than that members that were conflicted due to proximity >> since we're a tiny little town. Um so the idea was brought up do we can we explore the idea of alternates that's permissible under state law for some boards planning being depending on the
[02:18:39] town planning being one of them. So long story short looking at the composition of the planning board for that reality. >> So that's another change. So >> so why can't we can we do both simultaneously? >> Yes we can. >> Does that satisfy you? >> Oh yeah. >> Okay. I just I don't really see a need
[02:18:54] to go to town meeting to ask to approve a a committee. We could we just approve a committee ourselves. >> Well, could we appoint a committee in the next couple of months and then try and just >> Yes. >> We've already advertised like, hey, we're getting ready for this. Well,
[02:19:10] instead of going to town meeting in December of 2027, May of 2027, or is that time to >> I don't think that we could reasonably >> go through a process that looks at things that get raised by the community >> outside of this targeted >> That's fair >> initial effort. I think that would be
[02:19:28] too quick. >> Okay. >> This isn't something we want to rush. It's what actually the town that's how we operate. >> So, I think there's a utility to having a diverse group appointed to review it and taking time to review it and
[02:19:43] engaging the public in that review >> if there's a true desire to do it right. If if there really is, you know, the feeling that the the charter needs um significant revamping, edits, correction, whatever, but if it's really a standalone issue that, you know, some
[02:19:59] of us have concern over the moderator and or you know the >> we have moderator, planning board, board of health, but those are all >> right. >> And I'm not saying that's the board. I'm not saying on behalf of the planning board that was a concern brought up. So they should Yeah. You know, it's something that should be explored. Like I'm sure you're
[02:20:14] >> I just think like I think there's a smaller issue. It's not a big one, but you know, standing committees versus advisory committees. We've had since the last charter update like two or three other committees that have been regularly meeting. I'm not saying that that's I would I would never insist to do a charter review because of that, but
[02:20:31] it's one of those things that can be >> I don't think we should look at this as something that is a bad thing to be doing. It's a best practice. >> It's been 10 years since the community has looked at it as a group. >> So whether it's you all >> appointed saying not to do it.
[02:20:47] >> Well, no. He just said I would never say this is a reason to do it. I'm saying the the the fact that we've come up with five topics after saying there's something targeted that we can get just demonstrates that there are likely ideas to be >> that are worthy of discussion. >> And I think once you start thinking critically, you'll find other things
[02:21:04] >> other things because we haven't thought about it critically in 10 years. So >> when these when these happen do that is it uh is there generally a review and encompassment of the remaining bylaws zoning bylaws plan you know >> no it's a charter review specifically
[02:21:19] the charter >> yeah just charter >> a zoning bylaw like rewrite is a whole other situation I mean we go through those occasionally I've seen right I've seen years where like you know they went through and we changed bunch of things >> manually the last charter review that we
[02:21:35] did they had they had public meetings constantly and they had their open meetings constantly and I remember through the entire thing um the chair saying it was only at one meeting that they had one person come so and it was
[02:21:50] you know it was publicized pretty consistently but they did a lot of work I mean those three individuals did a whole lot of work I followed that >> okay so I guess what I would suggest I guess the point of impact right now is whether we wait to town meeting to ask
[02:22:06] them to allow us to appoint the committee or if we just do it. >> We just do it. >> I would just what would be the point of go I understand historically but what was the point in the past go to town meeting to ask them >> they did they vote they're they're responsible for approving the charter.
[02:22:23] So engaging them in the process throughout is a way to make sure we're building consensus throughout as well. >> So just building exercise. >> Yeah. Yeah, they participate in the formation of the committee, the charge and how it's composed. >> You're you're in a better position at the end to say >> here's the suggestion.
[02:22:39] >> Here's where we came from. >> So that was the framework. They approved the creation of the committee and the composition of it and the appointment power of >> the members. Okay. I >> mean, it's nothing to say that we can't it can be different. That's just what's been done in the past. >> Yeah. I would have actually I'd have to
[02:22:56] see his I'd like to see what the article looked like to appoint that 2016 committee. I mean I >> I mean town meeting may have an a a an opinion upon who is on that committee. I'm not just saying by by name but by
[02:23:11] position right they may have um different opinions upon that. Should I and I think there may be some value to having that heard not to delay it. I mean, we're in middle of September. Town meeting, winter town meeting is when? >> December. >> First week of December. >> First week of December. So, we're only
[02:23:28] >> not that far away. >> Two and a half months out. >> 10 weeks. There you go. >> So, even if we took a little time to get this ready to go, not versus going to town meeting, getting the getting the, you know, the the buy in and then getting the
[02:23:43] committee done. just get everything ready to propose and just lock it in at the first week of town meeting. >> Well, let's just >> I don't >> I'm just saying if we want buy if we want buy in from town meeting first >> I'm just saying
[02:23:59] >> agreed. >> I I we're not looking I don't I think when I hear we're looking for buyin but we need to do a charter review. I mean, >> that wasn't the buyin part. I was I was suggesting it was the buyin of how the committee is is who's on the who's on the committee. The composition.
[02:24:14] >> Composition. >> The composition. That that was the piece of it. >> Okay. How about we get the last Warren article in front of us and then distributed and then we give feedback to um Nick and we can put it on the next agenda to talk about.
[02:24:30] >> Does that make sense? >> The last war article >> that composed >> the previous one. The previous Oh, the last one. the previous one I thought from 2016 or 15 whenever the last war article was put forth before town meeting. That way we're talking about something real and not something obscure and that way we can have thoughts and
[02:24:46] opinions on it >> and we'll go from there. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great. I like that. >> Speaking of town meeting. >> Yes, sir. >> When hypothetically if this were to go on a warrant, when do we open the warrant for the December town meeting? That was on a timeline you shared at some point, but >> I want to say it's the the next meeting.
[02:25:02] I think it's the last meeting of this month and that stays open until October. Understood. >> But it might be the first meeting in October. I have to double check that. >> Okay. But it's in the next meeting or two. >> The real question is when does it closed? So it needs to be closed two and a half weeks prior because there's been multiple times where No, even No, we've
[02:25:17] changed the timeline. >> No, it's going to be closed at the very end of October so that we have time to get it printed and out in advance. >> But we talked about in May last year we changed the timeline. >> When does it have to be closed? >> End of October. >> End of October. Okay. >> I'll I'll bring that slide to the next meeting so we can just all look at it again and be on the same page or I'll send it around to the five of you at
[02:25:33] least. >> Okay. Thank you to that. >> We're going to move now to the discussion of the select board goals and priorities. >> All right. We uh for those of you who don't know, >> we met on a Saturday, a sunny Saturday
[02:25:50] in June at town hall in an open meeting to discuss select board goals. We gave individual goals and then we sort of ranked them in conversation
[02:26:06] um to to create some priorities. And what we hope to do is to distribute the goals and priorities to the boards and committees that advise us as a way to help them advise us in line
[02:26:22] with our goals and priorities. So this is supposed to help not only color the conversations we have here but outside of here um to make sure that you know when boards and committees are moving they are moving with confidence forward
[02:26:39] in line with our goals. So um we sort of grouped them um into >> let's see the meeting >> multiple priorities. The first one being
[02:26:54] financial um these are all from the meet the meeting minutes. >> Okay. >> Um from it's the fourth tab. >> Tab number four. >> The fourth tab. >> Was that July 7th? No. >> No. June. >> June 27th. It's tab number four. >> Tab number four. Go to tab four. >> Perfect. Thanks.
[02:27:09] >> See tab four. Okay. So, um discussion included uh long-term financial policy review. We talked about overtime management that that being a priority for the board, health insurance costs and looking at OPED and retirement planning. Um we
[02:27:26] talked a lot about financial forecasting and budget sustainability and long-term financial planning. Um I think part of the uh long-term financial planning included having conversations like in tri chair with um school and other
[02:27:46] making sure that we had theus accurate and correct and you know all those things we had t spoken about at the last collective tribe board meeting between fincom us and um school committee. Um,
[02:28:01] we talked about operational and organizational priorities including the charter review. So, we're already um coming to fruition at least on one of the charges. Um, we talked about trying to improve municipal operations uh through internal and external communications.
[02:28:16] Uh, committee coordination. This whole exercise was meant to help in committee communication of committees but also their viewpoints on where they're taking things. Um, trying to organize legal review. I think legal cost was also under financial priorities and legal
[02:28:33] review sort of grouped into the idea of how much who's reaching out for legal review if it's appropriate what what it if there's additional costs involved who's vetting that before it goes through. Um we talked a lot about labor relations
[02:28:48] versus municipal operations. Um Wayne had brought up a I think it was you Wayne a great idea about board and committee orientation and training. Was it you? Yes, I think it was you. So, >> um and that there are a couple really I can only think of school committee, but
[02:29:04] I don't know if FinCom goes through a a training. >> The assessors have training. >> The assessors have training. So, there are some committees right now that do have training. Um there are some that do not. >> Finom does have a training. You could take you can do a training thing. >> The state association does it. >> Okay. Some of these were the issue.
[02:29:21] Yeah. Some of these were um you know like you said or um my god who did you just say the um >> planning >> plan no >> planning and zoning go through it optional training as well >> assessors >> assessors that was the one I was thinking of they have very specific um related very specific training related
[02:29:37] to their duties I was more talking about at a high level of how to organize meetings just kind of basic leadership uh development within our own committees right >> how to take minutes how to post minutes >> uh how to make sure you post on teams
[02:29:52] correctly. How do we make it publicly accessible? >> So, um also have uh community governance improve or committee governance improvements which I think have a lot to do with minutes and making sure that agendas are posted with the correct
[02:30:09] amount of information on them at the appropriate time. Um and then HDC historic commission coordination figuring out historic district um commission. >> That might be something for the charter
[02:30:24] review. >> Is that that's a charge? Is this a charge from the charter? The >> HTC? >> That might be something to consider. We all had >> Is it in the charter? Did we create that? Or >> is that a bylaw? >> I don't know. I have to check. >> Well, we should talk about that because that is something we talked in depth
[02:30:40] about whether >> it's scope, its appropriateness, >> it's necessity. >> Um veterans committee, we heard Mr. dementoto volunteer to uh to help coordinate getting some veterans involved in at least figuring out who's
[02:30:56] available for housing, but I think Wayne really was talking more about a veterans committee, which we used to have in town. >> I was I was more looking for um a committee that could represent the continuing needs of Swamp Scouts
[02:31:12] veterans. And the the right now um it's my understanding we haven't had a an actual veteran survey since 1991. It's my understanding. Um and I'd like to see uh you know the needs of the veterans of different ages and different
[02:31:28] military scenarios over time have changed and the support needs have changed and um I I feel that we're kind of walking a little blind. M >> um so um I don't think that committee is just something you put together. I think uh it needs to come kind of kind of come
[02:31:46] from a grassroots from from the bottom up. Um so I've talked Mr. Deto, I've talked to a couple other people in the community about trying to get some information, trying to get some people that might be
[02:32:01] interested um into eventually I'd love to see a formal advisory committee formed. I don't think this is something you can do overnight, but it's something I'd like to definitely target. >> Great. >> But hold on a second. We absolutely have
[02:32:18] to have some type of a committee together. Now, whether or not it's Mr. Demento is going to run an ad hoc committee, but we we have to make a decision on an on what are we going to do as far as putting together a team of people that will be able to advise and
[02:32:34] find veterans who would qualify for veterans housing. >> Yeah, I think >> I mean, isn't that a charge of the veterans agent? >> I was going to ask that question. Yeah. >> Right. Isn't he wouldn't he spearhead something like that? >> So, I guess there's a difference between and this was explained when we first
[02:32:49] started to talk about this project. There's a difference between the information available to the veterans agent and the information that would be available to BBH and getting veterans in the housing. Um, so there is some information that that they cannot share
[02:33:05] with BBH for privacy reasons and things like that. So I I thought what the first charge was when we had talked about this and this was like 18 months ago was that once we were on this path of this happening, BBH was going to get us some information involving you know the
[02:33:21] calculation of AMI and how and that way we could bring it to the veterans agent understand how they're calculating it and how they're what the criteria and conditions are so that the veterans agent can help us along with some ad hoc members to identify help calculate
[02:33:38] identify and then apply. >> So, we're going to have people, random people in Swampscott as members of a committee with access to information that is confidential. >> No, no, >> no. So, >> no, they just they just No. They just
[02:33:54] need to understand how BBH needs to tell us how to calculate it. >> Yeah. >> And we can provide that information to veterans and we could through the veterans agent. they I don't they already have access to it to not their income or anything like that but the
[02:34:10] list of people we income driven >> but it's just the AMI parameters that you have to meet and stay under that we're >> yeah I'm not advertising to the AMI just >> this committee is just hoping to get more people >> this is more of a marketing market >> I think you're all saying the same thing in different ways that it's it's a it's
[02:34:27] a group of residents and citizens that can >> that can help advocate along with Mike and the other assistants that work in his office in Lynn >> to make sure everyone that should be el should be eligible or that we believe is eligible knows about it. >> Yeah. >> The individual can then make their own
[02:34:43] determination whether or not they are or whether or not they're interested, >> right? >> But it's sort of it's all these pieces together is how we will >> do what you want and what you want and what like it's all together. I mean there's also advisory in terms of what services could be created or or provided at the the new center that we're
[02:35:02] eventually going to be having. What I don't want to see happen is what happened at Michon. At Michon the I think that Benet put out a great effort in getting the message out. I mean they were constantly at the farmers market talking to people about how to apply to get into Michan.
[02:35:19] They they were sending out flyers. They did a lot of stuff. However, we had a small a very small amount of people who ended up getting into Michan which didn't make any sense after we ran the numbers. So, I just don't want to I
[02:35:35] don't want to I don't want to leave it out there. I don't want to be vulnerable to having a mistake made here. I mean, this is veterans housing, and I want to make sure we have every opportunity to get veterans in there. >> I guess um >> Well, how do you equivalate equival
[02:35:51] I'm trying to understand how you're linking that to the to the Michan BBH? >> So, what So, the question is what happened? We were we actually were here talking about it at the select board meeting when when we were first even thinking about um going into going to
[02:36:06] veterans housing. One of the concerns that we had and actually Peter was here um when I had I had the statistics to show really what happened and it was a real question like with all that effort that went out why is it only a small handful of Swamp Scout residents got
[02:36:22] into the Michan and so through those conversations we had decided we don't want to be in that position again. We want to make sure we do a really good job of making sure that people come and and apply and figure out what they have to do. And in a conversation I had with
[02:36:37] Kim Martin Epstein, there are things that you can do to manage your assets. So, one of the problems with Michon was a resident of Swampscott could have x amount of dollars worth of asset and make and be bringing in a small amount of money income on social security, but
[02:36:54] because of that asset, it ended up disqualifying them or or what happened quite a bit was people felt that because they had that asset, they didn't even apply when they could have applied. >> And there are also things that you can do, I'm sorry, you can do in advance to protect that asset or, you know, put in
[02:37:11] a different position. So you do qualify for that. So you know for example if you have a veteran you have a veteran who was on the state police state police officer and he makes a decent pension now would he qualify or how do we get him to qualify? How do we help him
[02:37:28] legally to get him to qualify? So I don't know that we can help. >> We can by getting information. >> That's what I was ineloquently saying earlier like getting the in getting the conditions from BBH and understanding either through um the help of Kim Martin
[02:37:43] Epstein or other >> people who have far more information on this than we do. How can we help people get into a position that when it comes time to apply, they can be certain that they meet the parameters and they can, you know, be confident that their
[02:37:59] application will be considered. That was the conversation we had initially, not necessarily, you know, trying to get into their confidential information or anything like that, but advocating for folks so that they know if they have a large asset like a home, how they put it, how how they can >> secure it,
[02:38:15] >> secure it in a way that still allows them to be able to apply to the situation. >> Okay, >> that's that's what >> just pushing out the information. So we have to get the information first and then we have to simultaneously assemble people who are reliable and giving out
[02:38:30] the information correctly. >> Wayne, your point in addition to all of that was to have this committee do advise a select board on programmatic things and support issues the ongoing needs of the veteran >> community. Not just for the housing project. The housing project
[02:38:46] committee is different. >> Yeah. Okay. Got it. >> Uh >> I think the committee we're talking about is temporary. >> Yes. you know, it's just a task uh task committee. Wayne's committee is, you know, >> ongoing. >> Yeah. I'd like to be a standing standing committee. >> Yeah. >> Um again, moving on to public safety and
[02:39:03] enforcement. Some of these things we've already talked about and we will continue to talk about, but parking enforcement, traffic safety, pedestrian safety. Mary Ellen has brought up, you know, fire and ambulance response and infrastructure. you know, when we had talked about whether the roads were wide enough and
[02:39:18] things like that, that's, you know, part of what we're talking about there. Illegal dumping. Um, infrastructure priorities, we had discussed, you know, obviously there's some infrastructure improvements that need to be made as Kleinfelder sort of discussed today. Water infrastructure,
[02:39:34] water harbor, waterfront development. We talked about beach concession areas, um, harbor management, which we talked about with Kleinfelder. Um parking we has been a topic of conversation in very recent history. Um parking management you know if we need
[02:39:50] infrastructure improvements for that. Um future development of parking and the financial impacts thereof. Um on the economic development we all a agreed without delay that Hawthorne Hadley were
[02:40:07] you know developments that we properties that we needed to see developed. Um, the church parking lot came up in conversation. I'm sorry, that would be the St. John's Church parking lot. Um, establishment of a potential economic development committee. We talked about
[02:40:23] that. We didn't really land, but something we can continue to talk about here. Um, developing a long-term economic development plan, redevelopment of unused town- owned properties that we had a long conversation about that. And then the preservation and redevelopment
[02:40:38] of historic properties. um let's see community priorities, community engagement, community trust, communication with residents and the support from the boards and committees to facilitate that and more. Um I think
[02:40:55] you know we we are in a rebuild process for engagement and trust and it's really important in that to be to try to be transparent as we can be and communicate as much as we can and um it would be helpful from the community to all one of
[02:41:13] you that's listening but hopefully lots of people are listening on YouTube and I can't see you. Um, if you have thoughtful ideas, contact Shannon, contact Civic Plus, contact any one of us, call Mary Ellen, call me. Um, to say
[02:41:28] we're not engaging enough is okay. To say you could engage better by doing X is better, right? And that's helpful and we can action that. Um to continue on the communication route, charter review communication, committee
[02:41:45] communications, public messaging, annual reports is really something that's fallen off the radar for a a lot of boards and committees. There's >> Don't they get filed with the clerk every year? >> Well, they're supposed to, Ted. I don't know that every board and committee has been doing it. under our former clerk,
[02:42:02] there was a delay with some annual reports and that's being >> remedied by our current clerk. >> Understood. >> So maybe we will get back into the swing of annual reports and >> understanding why they're important, how they report out to the community and
[02:42:18] um we've gone through some website improvements. I bet there'll be more um but we did talk a little bit about that and then better public engagement. We are always looking for ways to not be the ones sitting up here, right? Like we
[02:42:33] want to be here right now, but like there there's a whole version of the public that should be engaged. And if you want to sit in my seat, happy to discuss it with you. Um so the action items we left with are uh reviewing the charter, which is great because we're
[02:42:50] talking about it now. um developing a long-term financial plan, evaluating the Hawthorne and the church parking lot opportunities. We're sort of in the midst of that and we'd like to get closer towards the end of that. Continuing OPED analysis,
[02:43:07] um reviewing the health insurance costs, uh evaluating a parking management strategy. We started that which is great. Um we had been talking about that and now I think it's coming to you know closer to fruition in our last meeting. developing
[02:43:23] economic development framework, reviewing the committee structure and the orientation process, continuing with infrastructure planning like our conversation today with Kleinfelder and others, but also, you know, we had a big push recently um in the last couple of
[02:43:40] years to not just talk about all the things we've failed to do, but how we safeguard the things we're doing now. So you know especially on the beaches we've we had a lot of long time of failure of not doing enough
[02:43:58] and now we are doing it. So how do we simultaneously continue to make improvements and safeguard the improvements we've made? So we talk a lot about mitigating future issues and um making sure that that is cod like codified in some way um in capital and
[02:44:15] then improvement to community communication strategies. So I think for our next steps we sort of have to figure out short, medium, long-term projects and if there are de uh departmental folks who can help us
[02:44:31] facilitate some of them and then try to implement a timeline because that'll hold us accountable. >> There's a lot of stuff on this list, >> right? And I I >> Can you speak into the mic? >> Oh, sorry. There's a lot of stuff on
[02:44:46] this list. Can you hear me now, Nick? >> Get closer. like you're a rock star wonky setup here tonight tables. So, what does success look like? I mean, h how are we really judging by the la large laundry list of things? I don't
[02:45:03] want this to just be u an exercise in futility, right? I mean, how do we really assess how well we've done, how how close to goal we're getting? What does it look like? I mean, what does completion look like? you know, so I'm struggling just
[02:45:18] looking at this, you know, all of this this list of things. You know, it maybe we need to organize it a little bit more. You know, maybe it needs to be broken up short-term, midterm, long-term. Um, you know, I'd like to see things completed, checked off. What is
[02:45:33] what does that look like? Right. >> I I think we need a little more definition in order to do that. >> Yeah. >> Um, we talked a lot of these are very very high level. Um, they have subcategories to each one of them. >> Yeah. Um, and maybe we can start to stretch that out a little bit more so
[02:45:49] that we can give some very clear instruction to those that would be responsible for um both evaluating and and and exercising or executing the uh the the the plan,
[02:46:04] >> right? It's like some duplication that >> Yeah, there's some crossover for sure. >> There is, but it was categorized, >> right? There are some things we we really don't have direct control over. we the five of us annual reports, you know, u website improvements, those are not things we could actually fix or
[02:46:21] complete, right? So maybe we just reorg this a little bit so it's a little more actionable. >> Yeah, >> sure. I if can I jump in, >> please? >> Please. I I think that any of these require staff, >> so it's not just the website or any one
[02:46:38] of them. Um, so we're happy to give you something or to have you all meet again and come up with it on you tell us which way you want to do that and we're happy to move forward >> right >> in that framework. It could be that we bucket it by department head or topic,
[02:46:55] you know, >> so that we can identify things that live in a few different areas as Wayne just mentioned, >> right? um or that we identify needing significant detail to get to what you want >> because the action items are things that are a little more specific >> whereas the larger list you know
[02:47:11] provides a lot of context in a framework but to get from here to implementation >> we would want more input from all of you >> right because there's good there's a lot of good stuff here I don't mean to say that there isn't I just want it to be thoughtful and really have impact so that we do complete these things that we
[02:47:27] say are priorities so I think >> we just need a little bit more help. >> Could I suggest then that the five of us respond back to this or maybe Nick, you can set a template for us that we can give you feedback as to what those
[02:47:43] details are and then you consolidate them maybe. Does that sound like a reasonable second next step >> and then we can review? >> Yeah, I mean otherwise we can bucket them by category >> category or or department sort of. >> Yeah. And then
[02:47:59] >> or you can >> you can email me, I can meet with you. It doesn't we we will take feedback in any form. So >> yeah, I think what we have what speaking from prior years, we have all come up with Marielen, correct me if I'm wrong, we
[02:48:15] sort of all came up with our own version of priorities and then we would all scatter and do our own things, right? And some people were more successful than others >> on getting those things to fruition. And so I think what we're trying to do is
[02:48:31] help Nick and other department heads know these this is the will of the board, not just an individual member of the board or a small group of the board, but this is more of these are the things we should be focusing on. And sure, other things matter, but the this is
[02:48:47] what we've sort of stamped right now as priorities, >> right? So, yeah, I think if we could boil it down a little bit further, um, that is probably going to be the best way to action it. >> Yep. So, maybe Nick, you want to take a
[02:49:03] stab at maybe just grouping it, organizing it by category and, you know, soliciting feedback? >> Yeah. Or what? >> Sure. >> Like I said, I'm happy to email and have you write it or we can >> Yeah. >> sit down individually to get that
[02:49:19] feedback. Okay, >> great. >> Great. >> Okay, perfect. Select board time. Well, I can go first. I just want to uh
[02:49:35] thank Nate, um Ameiliano, Joe, and Ethan for running in at the last minute and being able to put on tonight's meeting. We had a lot of difficult technical issues in the beginning. So, if you weren't here, you missed a
[02:49:51] >> circus. >> Swap out of microphones. >> They did a great job and once again, they're bringing to us. Um, I also uh want to bring to the attention of the town that the Swam uh what is it? Swamcott
[02:50:08] Performance Center is now open. They opened on Saturday, which was nice. and um think they're going to be open every day now and we've got things moving along and I just >> swaps center for performing arts >> swaps center for performing arts right
[02:50:24] or aka the old farm um things are going on over there um we all received an email on um we all received an email from a resident we we received many emails from residents but the one email that really stuck out for me this week
[02:50:40] was a resident who was commenting on um the first day of school with the seniors driving around and hanging out of vehicles and putting making it um some decisions that could have put them into a pretty bad situation. And it seems
[02:50:57] like that goes on every single year. And I I would just like to ask Nick if you could have a conversation with the superintendent and the chief of police and maybe there can be an organized parade or something on the first day of school to to um make sure that the
[02:51:12] seniors get the attention and the the fun that they have on the first day going to school and also keep them safe. But when the superintendent says this is something that he's concerned about, the principal says she's concerned about it,
[02:51:28] the chief says he's concerned about it, I just I'd like to see some action being taken so that the kids don't miss out on a great experience and we're not sitting here a year from now with a tragedy on our hands. So, um, that's all I have to
[02:51:44] request and report. >> Anybody? Danielle, Ted, Wayne? >> No. Good. >> At the last meeting, I made a comment about transit oriented developments. My comment was strictly in relation to the permitting of that through the zoning
[02:52:00] package that was done through a 40B application, not an MBTA 3A zoning package, not a 161A zoning package or uh any of the other transit oriented developments that statute allows. Financing was not what I was insinuating. So, I apologize if there
[02:52:16] was any confusion. Marielle and I apologize if there was any confusion from my inarticulate response. >> Oh, that's me. >> That's it. I would like to uh also review a comment that I had made about
[02:52:33] wanting to get more information about those other 140 communities that were also not >> disallowed. you know, the for us the roughly 200 something thousand. Um I I would like to
[02:52:49] find more information what commonalities there were. Um and you know, this is where we do approach before we have to take any type of expensive legal action. But I agree going to Marky um and and going to who or even to warn whoever
[02:53:04] else will listen um to ask them what the hell just happened here? Why are we saddled with something that we thought that we followed the rules that we thought we were supposed to get and now small towns like us have to, you know, take on the take on the the brunt.
[02:53:20] >> Mhm. So, >> uh, tri chair meets at 8 a.m. on Friday. So, we'll be at town hall. Uh, we've met once before. Again, we're meeting to discuss theus and align them. Um some of
[02:53:36] them are out of date and need updating. um some of them need re-evaluation and some of them need further consideration and we will be um bringing I think I think the conversation was a sort of
[02:53:51] like a tri board meeting prebudget conversation so that everybody could come together again in the way we did before so that we're recorded and have a very clear understanding of what all the questions on the table are um and something to go back to when people say what did we mean when we wrote that um
[02:54:08] So, um, that's the plan. Happy to take any feedback. Um, you guys can give it to Nick and Nick will be there with me. Patrick's going to join us, too. >> When is that again? >> Try chair. It's 8:00 a.m. on September 11th, right before the memorial service
[02:54:27] remembrance. Okay. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Second. All >> in favor? I I >> Thank you. >> Thank you.