We're ready. Mariel, >> ready? >> Yes. Okay. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Wednesday, March 4th meeting for the select board. We are being recorded. If you wouldn't mind raising for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All righty. Thank you all for joining us. Um Nick, we will start with the town administrator's report if you'd like. >> Sure. Thank you. Um I have a brief
update. Um, we've been working on a lot with the budget at town hall, obviously. So, uh, I think there may be questions back and forth. Uh, but I have a brief update as I mentioned. So, on the human resources front, I just wanted to mention that we have a new administrative assistant part-time at the COA, Jeannie Paths, who's joining
us. We have Kylie Gates, who's joined as the assistant town accountant this week as well, which we're very excited about. And I wanted to give uh an update on police hiring, which has been an area of particular focus as well for the group. Um we have in terms of the academy graduations coming up we have one in
April, one in July and one in September. From there they do the field officer training as well or field am I saying that right? Field office field training FTO not FOT. Um in addition to that we have another conditional offer out um to an individual who has previous
experience um as a police officer who will go right into the FTO when he comes which in a full staffing model that will leave one that remains as we mentioned before. um with between the conditionals and the folks that are in um themies right now. We actually have two
conditionals, right Reuben? I said that wrong. >> One is a lateral from another state and then the other one is um going into the academy when she completes her psych medical and everything else. We will get her scheduled for the one of theies as well and that's a roughly six-month process once she's in. And then on top
of that, you do the FTO before she's actually out on the road. Uh for any of them, it's that is six or eight weeks. How how long do they do the FTO? FTO's three months. >> Okay, 12 weeks. Um, so we're making significant progress. Uh, we have folks in the pipeline. Finally, it's a a
credit to the effort of the team that supports and identifies to Ruben and I. We've been able to identify them. So, we're we're moving, but we are at the point now that for that final position, it requires a new pool of candidates if I remember correctly. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um, so wanted to update on that. Uh, in addition, I know folks, there have been a lot of emails over the last couple days related to the rail trail. Um, the metropolitan planning organization, which helps handle the transportation improvement plan. So, the MO that works on the TIP for Mass DOT uh
has a meeting tomorrow. There a draft that went around showed that the uh project was coming off the tip and with no notice to the economic development team, no notice to me, I reached out to our legislative delegation and to ledge affairs at Mascot. The delegation was
even more helpful in my contact. They are working now to actually schedule a meeting with Secretary Angot with myself Marzy um and folks from both the senators and the representatives office. So tomorrow there will not be a vote. It is just something that was sort
of floated as a draft. Um but you know we've been told very directly that there will be no vote to take anything on or off tomorrow and we will have a full discussion because this is the project that they understand we've continued to work on throughout. Um so more to come on that but I wanted to make sure because I know some of you may have
heard from uh individuals that have worked really hard on the project over time and I wanted that update to be shared here but also specifically with you all. Um I one update on information requests related to the budget. Uh, and this had come up in conversation. Uh, a
year-to-ate expense and revenue um, sort of outline for everyone that really lists where we are. It's something we want to share with all five of you. We had tried to get it prepared for today, but with the staffing and getting everything ready for Monday. It's something that we'll be able to circulate among the board uh, in advance of the meeting, but we'll be happy to
present uh, briefly on 318 as well so that the broader community can see it. I just wanted to let everyone know that that's why it was delayed today. Um, and then on the budget, I know we have it on the agenda to go into whatever detail we're interested to go into it tonight. Um, but Patrick and I have already been
rem reviewing with department the department head submissions. We had requested both level service and some modest reductions uh to begin so that we had the ability to sort of move into this as quickly as possible. We're looking at those. I've also had some uh very direct conversations with both uh
the police chief and the fire chief uh based on the direction we got around um overtime specifically so that we can think about both tactically and strategically how we may be able to manage that. Um and you know I think they were both really productive conversations and it's something that we
will report back to you all on but as of today the it was sort of introduced the idea yesterday talk about those off the top of the head potential solutions and we really need to dig in on both sides to understand what we would be doing because we want to reflect the uh the plan and the effort that will go into
meeting the goals that you all set which is staying at that level funded budget and what it will take to be there and what it will take to get there. uh both chiefs did recognize, you know, one of the things that will be most beneficial as a baseline is the fact that we are nearly fully staffed or fully staffed
and both for the first time in a long time. Um so we'll see how it goes from here, but I just wanted to let you know that that has already begun. I've also had initial conversations with the superintendent and we'll we're already planning to talk tomorrow based on you know understanding what may come out of
tonight. Um so tomorrow afternoon we're having the second discussion just following on Monday's uh initial budget uh presentation and the feedback that we received. So we're moving in sort of all those major ways that we can to figure out what we can come back to you all with that's responsive to the idea of
trying to lower the impact on the taxpayer. Um and I think that's it for what I had written here and I'm happy to take any questions that you all may have. So just just in regards to the rail trail, um so do you have any idea, Nick,
how many um you know ho how much has been spent so far? How many meetings have been have been taken, you know, just from the time that this was passed in 2017 to the present day? I mean, I I I want to I want to make sure that we're putting, you know, our best foot
forward. And I'm sure Marzy has that information. So I think it would be helpful to see what kind of funds have been expended uh how many hours have gone into this and and really you know putting that all together for for that uh for that comprehensive um discussion
with the secretary. >> Yeah. And so I think for tomorrow there has already been an effort among folks both in town and some of our sort of regional regional advocates that are looking at this as an important connector for the northern strand to Salem and Marblehead. People have already been sort of firing off emails
to the NO to the secretary and others that I've been copied on. Uh and Marzy is looking to gather information for tomorrow for the meeting. She plans to attend. It's a virtual meeting. Uh but we will have sort of the broader the full story to tell. Absolutely. It's a great note to make sure we have everything going back to the very
beginning so that the secretary and his office understands it's not just that you know Senator Kiteon and Representative Ardini called but it's the fact that this has been a community priority with a lot of energy and dollars behind it resources behind it in all ways uh over time and that was
certainly the feedback once people started asking um even when we reached out to the NO originally it was uh you know our project manager was kind of caught off guard that it was even on there. So, I think there'll be a little bit on their side that they will want to
explain and understand how it got there, but we'll certainly want to tell our story as part of that meeting as well. >> Excellent. Good to know. Thank you. >> I have a quick question on the the conditional offer. You said that it was for a lateral from out of state. >> That's right. Now when we do things for
out of state as far as checking background checks, we have the same security out of state as we do instate. >> Uh yes. So what we do is we check the the post commission in their state that they are currently at. Uh we check for
any disciplinary um issues or or any items that may have come up. And we also check the national descert descertification index. That's to also that's a federal registry um for officers who are either descertified or
have had Brady or Gigglio issues uh issues of truthfulness. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> There's more. No. That was it. >> That ask just questions at this point if you have any. >> Any additional Daniel? You're good. >> No, I'm good. Thank you.
>> Hey, thank you very much. >> Sure. Thank you. >> Thanks, Nick. Um, we will move to public comment. Um, I believe we're going to use this microphone that you have in front of you. Um, if you wouldn't mind, uh, if you are going to make public comment to make it and then move it to the end of the table and then whoever
else would like to make public comment can use that also. Oh, very quick to move it. Um, public comment will be three minutes. Public comment is on all items on the agenda. There is no um >> yes >> uh public
hearings being held on this agenda. So we'll take comment on all items. So if anybody has a public comment, please rise, state your name, your address, and um you have three minutes. >> Oh, please go ahead.
>> So I have to hold this and >> No, you can you can sit. >> You could sit. It's fine because it's in front of you. >> Please rise. I'm sorry. >> I know I did. I I'm sorry. You were just following directions. End up sitting. >> All right. Thank you. Thanks. U Good evening everyone. I'm George Allen, 27 Bayu Avenue. Uh on
February 18th, I sent the following email on Stacy's Brooks to the Kings Beach Steering Committee uh and the select board. I want to encourage Lynen Swampscott to move forward with joint flow ENT and turbidity measurements this summer separately in both culbrates to
inform next steps. ENT concentration alone do not let us assess or track the impact of brook outflows on the beach water quality. We need both ENT and flow to get the dose to the beach. Dose is literally the number of bacteria. There
are trillions of them per day. This is the metric that affects beach water quality, not just ENT concentration. We need dose data for each culbert separately to effectively track progress of mitigation efforts. Here's an example
of how this works. Daily ENT dose to the beach is the product of daily volume from flow and time and ENT concentration. If you reduce both flow and ENT by half, you reduce the dose, which is what matters, by 3/4. If you
reduce ENT by half, but the flow doubles, then there's no change in the ENT dose. Now, turbidity measurements, how cloudy the water is, are a strongly recommended add-on. This is an automated measurement that can serve as a surrogate for ENT bacteria. And because
flow isn't constant, this improves the estimate of the daily ENT dose. EPA has models uh to message beach water quality in real time. They use turbidity as the measurement. This approach can minimize the time when the beach is closed and also minimize exposure to elevated
levels of bacteria in the water. Lind Stacy's and Swamp Scott Stacies are totally separate systems that do not cross town lines with separate consent decrees. I've been asking around town and so far I haven't found anyone that knew that there are two completely
separate brooks, even when told there are two culvert outflows side by side on the beach. Lynn can't clean up Swampsbrook and Swampscott can't clean up Lynn's Brook. But together we are responsible for cleaning up the beach. Thus, I have a new slogan for all of
this. Two towns, two brooks, one beach. Finally, and somewhat related, I am running for the open seat on the Swampscot board of health this spring. Uh, and I have a both an engineering and environmental science and public health background. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Allen. >> Yeah, >> please. Um, Brian Watson. Um, three minutes. Three minutes really isn't adequate for any comments I have, but I'll do the best I can. I also would like to put in a plug for the idea of
having public comment, you know, during during agenda items where it's relevant. There usually aren't that many people to speak. And I think it would be far more helpful to try and comment during a discussion rather than trying to make a comment before you guys have even had the discussion. But anyway, uh I gave
you all the two contractor estimates for demolition of the restaurant because at the last meeting which I sat through the financial analysis meeting for the town, uh I know there's a placeholder for two million $2 million demolition of the restaurant in the capital improvement plan. I wanted to clarify that it isn't
2 million to demolish the restaurant. It's roughly conservatively 55 500,000 in that neighborhood. two million would include way more than demolishing and removing the restaurant. And that is at prevailing wages that that Massachusetts requires. Um and and you have two two
copies of estimates that are in that neighborhood. We actually had a third one in the same neighborhood. Uh but that person didn't want to participate until it's officially bid. So, so the point is to understand that the the penalty to the town if a private developer is engaged to do the
demolition at such time as a full uh a full development proposal is about 500,000 and that includes that includes about 100,000 for uh hazardous material abatement. Um so that's a pretty real number and you can use it. Um okay, I'm going to move on real quick uh with
what's left of my time. I want to comment uh with some degree of horror at the two RFP responses the town has received. Um the Swampska Center for the Performing Arts proposal is really alarming because it it bears no resemblance to what the RFP requested.
It makes 11 mentions of long-term sustainability of this proposal. Talks over and over again how this will be a decadesl long project. So this Swavsket Center for the Performing Arts makes no sense. uh it makes no alignment um with
the town's RFP. Uh I I I I think if we were if the town were to select it, we would be subject to a 30-monthlong lobbying effort by by the people behind it to to make it permanent. Um furthermore, to take either one of these, which I wouldn't recommend, uh
the 30 months I'm assuming doesn't start until the lease starts. So, we're going to spend the town's administrative time between now and that time, you know, doing due diligence. uh managing this process. Our town council's involved. I mean, look at the time, the staff time already, the town council time already.
It's a management problem that has real dollars and cents attached to it. And and we can't ignore that. We can't pretend that's not happening. So, uh as a last thought, if if the select would say did not take either of these, uh we
we could proceed as a town and uh within say 12 months. It's a big job. I understand it. It's complicated, but I mean the select board, you know, with with the assistance of others could come up with a development proposal and maybe maybe it's ready a year from now, but
but but to wait 30 months uh before we can start is it it just seems unnecessary and and it's not what the town at large voted for. >> Thank you, Ryan. >> Any additional comment? >> Gentleman in the back.
>> I think she had her hand up. You want to go? Oh, somebody >> over there first. >> That's all right. >> You can go. >> Okay. >> Uh, good evening. My name is Johnny Ray, 31 Atlantic A, Marblehead. I'm speaking here on behalf of the Swampscott Center
of the Performing Arts. Um, I just wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions that have been said in public about the uh the effort to uh with regard to the Hawthorne reuse project. Um, if anyone wants to uh find out more about the actual proposal, they
can go to swampscottcfa.org. swampscottcfa.org. First of all, we have no uh the association has no intention of investing a million dollars into the property. Uh we're sorry if that was a misconception that was uh we that would
that was uh mentioned in public and online. Uh second of all, the association is very much aware that it's a 30-month lease and uh that that's not a problem with the plans that we have. Um we did deliver something recently
that uh have our numbers which are based on industry standards under ideal scenarios. Basically, what the uh Swampscott Center of the Performing Arts wants to do is to bring a cultural center and act as the gateway to the Northshore, which is what Swampscott
really is, almost like a visiting center. It will have a uh a restaurant. It will have a showroom. And when we say showroom, we uh we want you to think of uh Blue Ocean Music Hall up in Salsbury or uh Jimmy's in Portsouth, New
Hampshire. a very uh something that will attract regional entertainment. We also want to put a uh cafe that will face uh Humphrey Street that will be open seven days a week uh for breakfast and and uh and hopefully out some outdoor seating
uh within the structure too on the second floor if we're uh able to use it. There's plans to put a puppet show theater for kids for uh birthday parties and different celebrations. And uh also we have this idea of a visiting center like a a gift shop or or a small museum
where local artists will be able to feature uh some of their crafts. So um we we know that the uh the board will do what's best for the town. We have every faith in in that. We just wanted to clear up some some misconceptions about
what we intend to do. uh we won't invest anything further than what is needed to uh open the facility and get it operational and then any other future in investment depends on the performance of uh those entities within the the
property. I think that's uh I'm almost out of time. So, >> thank you. >> Again, I'll just say that uh if you want to see more about the presentation, go to swampscott cfpa.org. swampscott cfpa.org.
Thank you. >> Thank you, Jeff. >> Hi, my name is Lily Tapper. I'm a business owner at 222 Humphrey Street in Swamcott. Um, so I recently found out about the proposals for the Hawthorne um, space and I just wanted to voice some of my
concerns. Um, I also recently met with some other business owners on Humphrey Street and they also shared similar concerns so I wanted to voice them today. Um, one of them is the parking and infrastructure infrastructure constraints. Right now, Humphrey Street
already has limited parking capacity and the winter conditions have proved um further um decrease in parking. Um it's taken several days or several weeks to clear out the parking spots on Humphrey Street and it's significantly significantly
um has impacted my business. Um I'm very new. Um, so it was pretty disappointing when I came to work one day and there was no parking spots for customers and they voiced to me that they didn't come that day because there was no parking. Um, we rely on a very small number of
parking spots on Humphrey Street. Um, so bringing in more businesses um on in the Hawthorne by the sea space would further um um be detrimental to that. So without any um infrastructure improvements, adding to the supply does not grow the
demand in the area. It would just redistribute it and negative negatively affect the um existing businesses there. We also had some pedestrian safety concerns. So um I have a crosswalk right in front of my bakery with a um a light
and I see time and time again that cars are not stopping um when the red light is on and go right by um the pedestrians trying to cross. and I've seen many people almost get hit and I've heard some people um getting hit on the crosswalks on Humphrey Street. So, that's a big concern and if we are
discussing a project to bring more infrastructure and um destinations onto that street, it's going to bring more pedestrians in the area and further um increase the safety concerns for the people walking and crossing the road. Um
and um I've seen people um cars letting um pedestrians cross and then cars go around them um and not stop and it's just a very dangerous position. So adding any additional food destinations would increase the traffic uh foot
traffic volume of vehicles and the congestion in an already unsafe traffic behavior area. Um also the impact on existing food businesses. So, new food vendors would um divert the revenue rather than expand overall customer
base. The established businesses are going to have a larger overhead than the the popups that are proposed in some of these proposals. Um and it's going to impact um the revenue um and adding new food options without expanding the capacity risk um risk undermining the
stability of existing businesses. So, um, what I've come, um, come up with with some of my fellow business owners is that we needed to, um, improve pedestrian safety, address the parking concerns, um, and support the
current businesses there before adding more. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Oh, I I see a hand up online, so if you could allow him to unmute. >> Unmute for him. If you um right click on
those three dots, I think >> there he is. >> Oh, he's there. Okay, great. Thanks. >> He sure is there. >> Uh Bill Demetto. >> Yes. >> 1008 Paradise Road. And uh it was a
pleasure to listen to J Allen uh who talks the talk and walks the walk. And it is an absolute crime that this board has not been proactive and
put him on that committee to to energize have an expert like that and you folks are sitting there doing nothing about it. I've been on this for months for you to put him on that committee and it's just a shame. But I'm delighted everyone
in town can see that a petty political argument has interfered with filling this committee with this kind of an expert. Thank you for the time. >> Thank you, Mr. Dementoto. Anyone else?
Please state your name and your address. >> Hi, uh my name is Mike Keller. Uh Pineh Hill Road, Swampscott. Um, I just want to speak in favor of the limited time only proposal. Um, just uh I hear your
concerns and I'm very happy your business is in town. Uh, but I just wanted to clarify. I know I've sent everything. I'm not going to talk much, but she did address some things that um I think is worth addressing. And you know, my proposal will actually incorporate local businesses because we're going to be outsourcing food to
open fast and to do uh to try and partner with other local businesses. Uh, and so I think the destination we've created will actually hopefully drive more business to your bakery and to other businesses in town uh as overflow. Um, but anyway, thank you and um that's
uh all I got unless Yeah, that's it. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any additional public comment? >> All right, seeing none, we will move on to new and old business. Uh the first item is discussion and possible vote on the fiscal year 2027 preliminary budget.
>> We included this to allow for discussion when we were posting. It was in advance of Monday's meeting. This, you know, we're happy to take any other feedback, questions, um and obviously any requests or information that we can provide to better inform, but we posted this in advance of Monday's meeting to make sure
it was available to everyone. >> Okay. Uh, so I guess then if if any of us haven't communicated any followup or questions or requests for documentation from Patrick or Nick, anybody have anything? I I think the one thing I would add just
to highlight that as we understood what you asked for was looking at where we could make some difficult decisions that would result in savings that may affect or may not affect uh service and be able to articulate that but also to be looking at that through the prism or the the lens of you know what is the number
that will have sort of chunky impacts on the taxpayer impact. So, how much do we need to reduce in order to have a $100 reduction in the anticipated tax bill that increase in the anticipate anticipated tax bill? That's the way that we're looking at it and that's what we would anticipate coming back to you with something on the 18th that would
have a little more detail. So, I just wanted to make sure that that that does drive with what you all are looking for. >> And then I'm guessing this is going to be a the budget is going to be on every agenda. >> It we plan to have it on every agenda. I think discussion for sure. I think per the charter at some point in the near future we would like to have a vote just
to continue moving it through the process understanding that it will continue to change. Um but yeah my my expectation is that we would have this every week that we are together so that we can be providing anything that's necessary or having deeper discussion around anything we do provide to you. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. I think the only comment I I sort of walked away lingering on was the parallel track of asking each, you know, department head, school, police and fire to take another hard look at the budget and come back to you with some necessary
depreciation and then also at the same time having two additional paths having Patrick come up with the dollar amount by which once we've sort of settled that dust Now, how much are we looking to cut?
Like, and how much is that um communicating into a tax savings? So, I think for me, it's likely the one before the other, but both are equally important. >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. And, you know, I think that we can
come to you with a a thoughtful discussion on both that we'll highlight and we can start we can talk about which one should go first in that discussion. But uh it's certainly something where I think we had asked department heads already to think a little bit about in advance of this knowing that we were making a significant ask as it relates to excess
levy capacity. So there there has been some discussion already and we can go a little deeper on the expense side but also understand if there's you know obviously salary impact in terms of staff. >> Um right now we're focused on expense and optimizing and making sure that we can do everything that we can and then
to describe to you all how that would impact service. So that is a you know it is a thoughtful discussion and informed discussion that you all and then ultimately pincom and uh town meeting will be making. >> Wonderful. >> Okay everyone's good we'll move on. Um
update and discussion of the water sewer infrastructure advisory committee. That's you >> Hello. >> Oh hello Kelly. How are you? >> I am remote. How are you? Well, thank you. So, we have um I believe we have a presentation which Nick's going to pull
up. >> Just give me one second. Working on >> and we have the chair on for the committee and some committee members who are going to >> excite. OKAY, GREAT. WHOA.
SCREEN. >> EXCELLENT. It's like magic. Okay. So, I'm Kelly Bee, um the chair of the water and sewer infrastructure advisory committee, and Brian Drummond, the vice chair, is in person at the meeting. And
uh we have a a essentially a committee status update and alignment discussion that we wanted to share with the board and the town administrator and the director of public works and the community today. So, next slide.
>> Oh, give me one second. Here we go. >> Great. And I know folks are generally aware, but just to kind of refresh and just take a quick second to remind ourselves how the committee came to be and what our mission is. Our purpose um
as a committee is to advise the select board on matters affecting Swanson Scott's water resource systems. So that includes the drinking water system, the wastewater system, the storm water system and ground groundwater including the under drains. So it's a pretty broad
charge and um the committee is to develop reliable subject matter expertise related to the town's water resources and work with the director of public works and engineering consultants to develop and recommend u make recommendations to the select board on
plans policies and procedures on more or less complying with various state and federal regulations MS4 consent decree other clean water act requirements. So again, we've been uh the committee was established um in November of 23. The
select board appointed committee members in January of 24. We have eight voting members currently, including the director of public works, and our committee meets monthly. Next slide. I won't go through all of this. It's all
on the website. Um but as a point of background, our mission uh as established by the select board when the committee was created is to review the asset management plan that was developed by CL Kleinfelder in 2024
um as part of a grant and the associated capital improvement plan that is included with the asset management plan and comment on priorities and recommendations to work with the director of public works and the town consultants. in this at at this time is Kleinfelder to
research and understand historical um water sewer and under drain repairs or rehab and um potential causes of elicit discharge. Um review all IDE uh investigation and remediation plans for Stacy's Brook and
the areas beyond um Stacy's Brook and make recommendations for plans, timelines, and funding. engage with DPW um cons consulting engineers D and EPA to monitor, review and report on plans and progress toward goals to evaluate
bringing groundwater, wastewater and storm water systems into compliance and recommend funding solutions. Next, engage with neighboring communities to u uncover opportunities that could benefit from regionalization.
Monitor and report on any new state or federal policies that could affect how the town manages water resources. Coordinate with other town committees, climate action planning committee and open space and and others. And look for opportunities to collaborate and establish community outreach and
education for all matters relating to storm water management and other related issues. Next slide. So there at the time that that the mission purpose and mission was established a set of very specific goals
for our committee was established as well. Um um in terms of the desire to to seek feedback from the board and the sound administrator and others on um on priorities going forward. We wanted to
offer that we take a look at some of the original goals and and um look at perhaps aligning our goals better with the priorities for the town and the community going forward. um in particular these the what's on the
screen are the sewer specific goals and the primary the primary issue as I see it as the committee sees it is that many of the of the goals which are really are sort of the way we're going to measure how prioritize our work and how we're going
to measure success the community success is whether or not we achieve these goals. So many of these goals are actually consultant deliverables. They're they're they're not they're not really in keeping with what the the mission of the committee is. So I I just
wanted to start that conversation in terms of trying to re refine and really uh refresh what success looks like for our committee and and what collectively with uh the town administrator, the select board and other committees we
want to focus on. So in this case as it stands currently the sewer specific goals are to review INI historical and current rates. That's a definitely a shared task that the committee and the town and the town's consultant can collaborate on. The second sewer
specific goal is to complete a townwide infiltration and inflow study and to use those results to prioritize sewer activities for the next 5 years. That type of a study is something that would be prepared by the consultant.
That would be a consultant activity. Next is to develop a road map to follow on investigations that is referred to in as in the goals as a sanitary sewer evaluation study. also a consultant deliverable refine the
capital improvement plan to eliminate INI and renew the aging system and eliminate sources of sewage in the drainage system. Also a consultant led deliverable study the issue around private sewer laterals and develop a policy or program that citizens can utilize to inspect and repair their
laterals and discuss how to fund that. I think is pretty squarely a committee um advisory committee task. Next, um these are the drain specific goals and who would lead such a such an
activity. Recommend an annual operating budget to comply with annual nifty storm water permit requirements. That's definitely a shared goal that we could collaborate with all the stakeholders on. Assess the condition of the drainage system, primarily a consultant activity.
Develop a roadmap for investigations into the drainage system. Consultant ongoing training of DPW staff to perform outfall inspections. Consultant explore institution of a storm water enterprise fund to create dedicated
revenue to source and fund activities. Advis that would be an advisory task that we have undertaken and we have developed. Um we had some recommendations internally with our committee regarding uh storm water enter
enterprise fund opportunities. Um advance understanding of the vulnerability and exposure to climate change related to flooding. Shared shared goal evaluate green space and other opportunities for storm water reduction. A committee a committee-ledd
activity. Develop comprehensive storm water management plan consultant lead and there is an existing storm water management plan currently. Next slide. So why goal alignment is needed is that we would you know most of these goals
are are technical engineering deliverables that the consultants is preparing. So our committee's value is in reviewing the deliverables, coordinating with the director of public works, the town administrator, and helping the select board to prioritize actions and funding needs. And aligning
these goals ensures that our committee can deliver meaningful input on planning, prioritization, compliance, and community engagement. The committee is proposing to work with the select board, the town administrator, and the director of public works to reset the goals so that they better match the committee's mission in the town's
priorities. Next. Um that aside, in fiscal 26, the focus areas that we're actively working on currently um include um the sewer lateral bylaw, which was
developed and um withdrawn from town meeting last year. That's um go being uh refreshed and with the intent to submit for May Town Meeting. developing sampling strategies. Um George Allen is
amazing and we and has had put forward some excellent suggestions. So we have a we have a sampling um work group in on our committee and we have two folks that um have extensive backgrounds in environmental sampling and they have
also as our whole committee has reviewed um George's recommend >> you went on mute. Um, >> hold on one second, Kelly. >> Hold please. >> Nope, you're still on mute. One second. >> She might have to unmute. >> We'll say with respect to the gaps, the
mass D who gave the grant funding for the development of the asset management plan has specific criteria to be to be eligible for the grant funding which which the project met. So in our you
know technical review of the asset management plan and our feedback doesn't mean that the that the plan um didn't satisfy the criteria that Massie put out. It it did and it received that funding but so what we're sharing are are observations and gaps. So um first
up the risk um associate there's a risk assessment associated with the asset management plan. there's risk, likelihood of failure and consequence of failure that deres um a a risk approach >> and for the most part >> did I do it again? I hear an echo
instantly. >> Okay. Um the um you know the infrastructure here is old. We don't have most of the records if the extent to which we have records are written and they're older. So most of the um risk
assessment is based on estimated age and material. It this is there's there's lots of different ways to depending on the the level of um granularity and um information that you have for a risk assessment of any sort including an asset management plan. They can be more
or less accurate depending on the data upon which it is based. In our case, um, this asset management plan is based predominantly on estimated age and material and there and there are gaps there. There are, you know, assumptions that could could be refined and there's
there's other data that we as we make improvements to the system um, you know, could in an ideal world be be um more memorialized in an in asset management software or some other way to more um
efficiently track upgrades um and and failures and um improvements, replacements, repairs that are made as we go forward. So that's a gap. Um the there's there are some missing there are also some missing
assets um that are not identified in the plan. Um but it is a starting point and it does gives us a a fairly complete inventory and and a place to begin and to evolve it from there. the risk
prioriti prioritization method in this sort of high level um asset management plan treats the the different systems equally in terms of the water system um the storm water system and the wastewater system. It there isn't the consequence of failure
is treated equally between the three systems. So it doesn't distinguish in terms of prioritizing projects and prioritizing funding. it doesn't really distinguish that a a potential um consequence of failure of the drinking
water system may be higher than the consequence of failure of um a storm water system. So it's it doesn't get into that um and it you know it it does lack some detail that would be needed to further
refine um under a better understanding of system risks and project priorities. Um it also provides you know an opportunity now that it exists the plan exists there there it provides opportunities to
explore other other options to seek grant funding for this is just one example there are other opportunities but one example would be to seek grant funding for an asset management software tool to better support um make repairs in a dynamic system. we can improve, we
can evolve the asset management plan. Um, in terms of the water system, you mentioned a little on the previous slide, we do have, every town does have, as do we, um, an ongoing a water balance
loss. We we lose 20 some odd percent of the water that we get from MWA on an annual basis. So we have an opportunity to um kind of to look into that further and and see if we can reduce that and as well as address any um weaknesses in um
you know potential future fire protection and and confirm that that we don't have any lead service lines. At this point, we haven't found any. And there there's the the the data to date about we're about 40% of the way through the tie cards, the water service tie
cards. There isn't an indication that we have lead service lines and swaps, but more work is needed to get through the get through um the entire inventory. Um I think I mentioned this on the previous slide the with respect to governance we there we would suggest
that there be some coordination that coordination um include um with coordination with other committee committees and ongoing efforts like the king speech steering committee next. All right. So the feedback that we are
requesting from the select board is um thoughts um feedback on you know an approval to kind of revisit and refine the committee's goals to align it with um our mission and the town's
priorities as they are right now. um seek some direction on the expectations for our committee's coordination with the select board, the town administrator, and the director of public works and other committees and to clarify our committee's role and ongoing
work like the King's Beach Steering Committee. I think that's the last one. That is >> okay. Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Kelly, for the
presentation. Brian, did you have anything you wanted to add before we moved on to select board discussion? >> Not to put you on the spot, but just because you're here. >> If you if you don't mind, Kelly, I just want to elaborate on a few things that you said. And I'm Brian Drummond, vice
chair of the water and sewer committee. And and I don't know, first I'd like to praise the select board, the town administrator, and Kelly because I think we have a phenomenal committee. They're just highly technical people and want to do numbers, want to do reviews, and we
have people in the industry, people that do statistical analysis and been involved with with testing. That being said, we seem to always wrestle with in our mission statement,
>> the word review. And the question is, okay, so are we reviewing a finished report or can we review the draft and maybe make that report better? And we weren't allowed to review the UV
pilot Kings Beach report, make comments. We just got something afterwards and and I think if the committee had been allowed to review that report, it would have been a
better report and that it would have had perhaps more swamps focus, would have had better charts of swamps, would have been a statistical analysis, would have had a better recommendation, would have talked about, you know, Kleinfelder, you know, was in the plan
to measure the volume from the swamps and then Lin Culverts. So something happened with the pump vendor and then you know at high tide the ocean came over the werewall and we were pumping in seawater. We were processing seawater
through the UV system and we were clogging the system with seaweed and somehow nobody had the authority to stop the test and make the right question corrections which would have been turning the pumps off at
high tide. And so, you know, there was a the whole way the testing was run that it needed to have, you know, a test zar or test person that had that that authority. Um we did vote on the committee two
meetings ago, you know, to ask the board to going forward that the town, the state and the feds asked them to do separate testing in the swampsuit covert because you know the positive thing of that UV
project last summer was for the first time we got the swampsuit bacteria numbers separate from when they combined on the beach. So what we saw from that was that we're in pretty good shape and making great progress and but you can't do that if you don't have that
number separate and that the state has to do it, the feds have to do it and the town has to do it and so we're going to ask you to to take care of that. Um the sewer lateral bylaw is coming. We'll probably vote on it the next meeting, but it's going to need to
have a quick turnaround with town council going through it and then presenting to select board if we're going to make the the May town meeting. Um, and the huge water loss of 23% makes no
sense to me. And I think I think we have too many water main failures and and I don't know why and and and in an ideal world the asset management report would have pointed out those pipes as red and being going to fail and you
would fix them before they failed. And you know, the hardest thing to do is it's easy to to fix stuff once they fail, but it's a huge cost. And the hardest thing, you want to fix it the day before it fails, but that's hard also. But that's where you want to be.
And the asset management report and plan, you know, has to be updated constantly so you can adjust it and and make those those changes. and and if another pipe looks similar to one that just failed, well, you you look at and
you fix it. And that's why you use the report. And the last thing I'll say is, and it's kind of off topic, but maybe not, is that the town noise bylaw is not correct. And somebody's got to
update it because it's in the it's using the wrong units and it doesn't include the amount of the noise level above ambient. You know, that was one of the big problems at the Kings Beach UV pilot
program. It's, you know, the noise met the limit when you got traffic and everything going, but two in the morning it was too high above that ambient level and that's has to get added to the
swamps noise bylaw. So that's just it's related but not. >> Thank you. >> That's all. >> Okay. So I guess how do we all want to start this discussion because I think the committee's asked
for us to >> give feedback on three >> could we post could we re could we >> Yep. Could you put the um >> slide back up a second >> I said feedback and then I could hear myself so I thought it was the irony
happening. Um so I'll read them real quick. Uh they've asked for approval to revisit and refine the um goals to align with the missions and town priorities. They've asked for direction on expectations for coordination with ourselves, the town administrator, the DPW director, and other um committees.
And then they've asked for clarification on their role in ongoing work like Kings Beach Steering Committee. I mean, I I think the easiest one is the last one to be honest. Um, so if we want to start there, I think
>> well I think we kind of have to I think we have to really kind of go far back here. So I first want to understand the mission and the goals that were put up on one of the previous slides. There were a number of them. >> Where did they come from and how far back do they date to that who created
those? Like where where did that where where did that originate? >> I think it's from Sean when >> Okay. the committee was put together. >> So, he tasked you guys with the list that was previously up here. >> The select board tasked him with >> Okay. Okay. So, that was probably Oh,
here we go. Okay. So, >> sorry. >> That's okay. >> Okay. So, are there any of these that are they still ongoing? Right. Are are any of these ones that can be removed? How far back did I I mean if these were created
by Sean what maybe three four years ago are there any that are still relevant what is still relevant what's not >> so Kelly do you want to say because I would I would say you know the the reviewing of the asset management report
>> at this point that's a one and done >> right should come off >> but it shouldn't be >> it shouldn't be >> no it should be a ongoing >> ongoing maybe we need to word a different way or or because my problem is with with looking at these and looking at the
presentation ahead of time, I was nothing but confused. Right? So, I think that we have to somehow simplify that so people can actually see what the original goal was, what the work was that was done, whether it's completed, whether it's outstanding, and to give us
an idea of where we've been, where we're currently at, and where we're striving to go. Right? That's how my mind works anyway. And I I just felt like there were way too many of these to be manageable for any committee. Yeah. Um, so that that's my first thought that
some of the stuff if it can come off or has been completed, let's try to let's try to get that down to a manageable level because I just think that as much as I I commend volunteers and committees, this is just a big it seems
to me to be a whole big ask, you know, um, for people and whether or not we're actually getting this stuff done or this is just kind of pie in the sky goals or, you know, um, what what if this is manageable? So that's kind of my first question on the goals. Um
what can we pair down here? How can we make it a little bit more manageable and really understand what's been completed? What we're still looking to do in the plan to get there. >> I think a lot of these things are ongoing. There are plans. There are there is a roadmap there. There are
compliance efforts for nifties. There are I mean many of these things are things that are clean water act and MS4 and other related regulations and there will always be a need to do this work there. Most of this most of the things
that say consultantled start with a report and and it evolves just like the the the cleaning up of the beach. We've been working on the consent decree for 10 years. It started with a report and then it iterated and that's
how we have phase one, phase 2 A, phase 2 B, phase 2 C. They're they're not static. They're dynamic. They at one point in time there is a document but work has to happen in most cases here continuously.
Um so in terms of crossing things off like are any of these done? Can we just put an X through them? There might be a couple like that, but I mean even the storm water management plan, it exists, but it shouldn't be it should be evolved, >> right? I think my bigger point is how do
we get people in this town to understand where we're at, right? Because a common question that we get is where are we with the consent decree? How far along are we in that process? Go to the next slide. >> So, I'm trying to figure out a way that we can make this more digestible for the 15,000 residents that live here to
understand where we're at. Right? That's that's my point. >> So there is there is a line on the consent decree. Can you bring it up on the what slide? >> Slide one or two. >> Yeah. Um, the consent decree is the ter
termination. There's it's the termination clause is it's very difficult to to there's not a line in the sand that's very clear in the regulatory language and the consent decree that says you will be done when you hit this point >> you will be done when you comply and the
and the in terms of where are we >> um we are working on that we are working >> um Brian's working is that's his priority project um there's a lot of different ways to do this some are more expensive than others Um,
one way the Cadillac version of how do we tell people in a digestible sound bite in an elevator speech where are we? How how close are we to done? and the Cadillac version of that which the town may not be in a position to be
financially to be interested in it at this time is to have it uh all in a in a GIS system to basically have an alignment between I'm throw this is just an example there's many software plat platforms this is just one but city
works is an example of a system that can align with ArcGIS that that most consulting firms use to track rem the remedy efforts for um consent decrees associated with MS4 with the sewage
getting into the storm and and all that information is all being it's always changing and and and progress and data and physical geospatial databases with where did this happen where did that happen where was this repair where was
the concentration of um ENT here where was it there all of that data is in the geo spacial database in an asset management software plan and you can you can configure it to create a report and you can actually quantitatively say we
have this many linear feet of pipe, we have this many manholes, we have this many and it could it that is a much more sophisticated and accurate way at on a dashboard level to to look at your screen and say, "Oh, I see we're we're
pretty much 80% of the way there. I can click here, here, here, and I can see that's expensive. >> Kelly, didn't Kelly, didn't we have >> didn't we have some some version of um of what you're des you're describing the
uh the geospatial data GIS system uh in place for testing uh at Fisherman? >> We do. And yeah, and Kleinfelder uses it. And we have we have a I think we just hired a new GIS specialist in the town. So we absolutely the town has
access to all of that data. There there is an in terms of how how could you make we other Quinzy does their does their progress reporting electronically through an through a city work system so
they can gauge where they are by a query by generating a report in a in a database. we could do that um at the moment in the absence of funding for that and it you know it's as with anything it's software is modular and if
you really want to customize it's it adds up. So Brian um has basically taken the consent decree and we've put it in tabular form and you know it's whatever it is 30 pages long and we're go trying
to more or less well eventually distill it down into like a one page or like a red yellow green like a stoplight format but um really just we don't want to it doesn't make sense to go through um 10 years of semiannual reports you because
that's what in order to really say how much have we done? What have we done? You it exists. That information exists, but it's in it's in report after report after report. So that's what we'd have to do is really
kind of gauge where have we been, where are we going, how how much of um of the infrastructure have we have we actually either sampled and determined is not problematic or repaired or replaced and how much haven't we? I I think Brian
wants to jump in here, but I think what's difficult, which we when we developed this committee to go in this direction, we all understood that this was almost insurmountable because we were asking you to do something that number one, we've never done before. So,
you were creating from full cloth outside of water sewer rates. We've never we never really took some of these matters into consideration. And then in addition to that, as Kelly so eloquently stated many times in this presentation,
this is a dynamic situation, right? We're constantly upgrading things and things are constantly getting older. So when things like that happen, uh when you have a stagnant report, how are you able to really show the public, yes, we
did this report a year ago, but we also did these 27 things between then and now. some good, some bad. And this is where we are today. If you don't have, you know, a system to do that >> in lie of spending the money on a system, we have to either, you know, give some grace or Brian has had to
stand up for many moments and is eager to say something about this. >> So, I think it's very simple. Every six months, Kleinfelder does a report that goes to the EPA. It's 300 pages long. A lot of information what they did and
what's going on. and I've asked them to put in that report where we are relative to the cons consent degree. The problem is I don't have the authority to ask them that because we're just an advisory
committee and we you know it's like well so I want to sit down with Kleinfelder because there's only 19 paragraphs in section seven of the consent decree and a lot of the paragraphs say by September 1, 2017 you must have done this.
>> So those should be easy to check off >> right >> and say we're done. But nobody's doing that. And I can't get a meeting with Kleinfelder to sit down with the top person and go through that that list because somehow we can't meet with
>> at that point. See, this is where I think Nick should be inter interjecting, right? Because I think that it it should be on the TA's responsibility to get Kleinfelder and do exactly what Brian is trying to do. That would be my suggestion here. in in conjunction and coordination with the DPW director who's
been here since day one. >> Right. Of course, the historical, right? They can help with the historic. >> So, the six-month report March 1, 26, 2026 is done. >> It's going to be on the DPW website today, tomorrow, and next day.
>> And I asked them in my comments to that report to include, you know, a schedule where we are and when we're to be when we're to go to Article 19 requesting relief from the cinary
>> and and they said they thought it was too early to do that. >> Who did Kleinfelder said? >> Of course they did. >> Yeah. But I think but I think I I you know what do I know? But I think by the end of all the construction and work and the money you're spending this summer >> Exactly.
>> in the fall, >> you're 90% there. And I think I think it I think we should be putting that together and you know start the first cycle of going to the EPA and and see if we're
>> totally agree with you. >> See if we're on track or not because a lot of times you know you're you're in there thinking here and you got to start >> right >> cycle of communicating you know okay well you know and then you know what to do to finish it. I think >> I think we should be doing that this fall. >> Yep. >> All right. we sort of veered away from
what this is a great conversation. I don't disagree. We we're in the section of goals. I mean, is it the will of the of your committee that you want us to dictate new goals or you just want the ability to come back with suggestions
for what you'd like goals to be? >> So, >> we can come back with suggestions. Um because we want to we don't want to act in a vacuum. >> Yeah. We didn't dictate them in the first place. Like we didn't give a list of all these goals originally. These goals came from development with the
town administrator. David >> Well, well, they did they they did they came in in coordination in conjunction with the town administrator, the the the original committee and and the DPW director. >> They were brought in front of this board in at some point in 23 and or early.
>> But I mean, we didn't draft them to like people who knew more than we did >> is what I'm trying to say. And I mean that's the whole reason you guys exist, right? Is because we don't have we we we weren't and we don't have the ability to go through the hundreds of thousands of
pages that y'all are going through on a regular basis. And it wouldn't be prudent for us to tell you what your goals should be without doing that. You guys are doing that. So my suggestion would be then for you guys to go ahead
and realign new goals and then come to a conclusion as a committee of what those goals are and then report back to us either through David or through us that you're set and this is the direction you think you want to go in and we can have another public discussion about it. But
>> I think I think what we need what I think the committee needs because we spend so much time discussing whether we have the authority to review the draft from Kleinfeld or King Beach or whatever or whether we can only review the finished product. I think we need
clarification on what review means. >> And I and I'm going to say it straight out if if >> you know if you want if there's no question whatsoever that >> that's six month there is no question
whatsoever that >> that's something that I can address with you know and you like 100% >> I just wanted to address the distinction >> that distinguishes what the past versus the future >> it is the six month absolutely they it's part of our contract with them for engineering services we decide that not
that >> yeah so just to that effect Mr. Drummond, how long how long would the water sewer infrastructure advisory committee need to review a draft? I mean, how much time would you need? How many meetings would need to be held? You know, >> so so the the way we did it this time,
each member, you know, got this six-month report on Friday and we had to individually give comments to Gino by Wednesday and then Gino decided that's that's the way we did it this
past week. >> So, in an ideal world, how would how would you want to do it moving forward? >> I think what we did this time was great, but in the ideal world, I'd like to meet with them face to face.
That's me >> because they've got tables in there and they and they, you know, I think there's so much more meat that should be in there. I don't know if they'll do it or not, but you know, if >> Well, do you communicate that with the
head of DPW? I mean, if you're communicating that with the head of DPW, why wouldn't the head of DPW just be communicating that with them? >> Well, I mean, but I mean, you know, we got it this time. We got the review and and everything went to Gino. But you know if we if we do face to face well
then that's really got to be added into the work quote that got to get worked up for these you know and they got to add so many hours to meet with another committee. So it's really not in the current 2026 >> cost structure >> cost structure of what they quoted on
and I understand that. So I could work with Gino to identifi identify if >> anything exists in the scope that it could allow for adjustment where fewer meetings with this group means more ability and resource to do the you know
I don't mean this group I mean group A allows us to do what you're suggesting with a representative group of your committee. I'm happy to go into more detail with Gino and to figure out what that looks like. They don't >> Okay, great. And I think so I think
we empower you to review the goals and to realign them. I think that could easily be communicated back through David and if there are, you know, red flags, either something's missing or some I mean, I leaned over during the presentation and I was reading the goals
and I said, "Wait, weren't they originally created from water sewer rate advisory committee? The rates aren't a part of the goal structure, but that's something you guys have to accomplish for us, right? You guys >> sure >> still say that. So like >> well and also you know summer summer
before we did all the testing at all the beaches. >> Yep. >> Right. That was >> the former chair and vice chair and that's not in any of these. >> Brian it's like you knew I was going to ask that next. Um >> you as >> I wanted to move but it should be because it's
>> made a huge impact. I wanted to move on to the clarification on the role with Kings Beach Steering Committee and then you guys have I mean years past you've taken testing roles and you you did not do that last year
did you sort of >> I mean the board of health really >> no border health but >> but I'm going to say we did the King's Beach UV pilot testing thing
but then the Wii became half a wei because you know the chair one >> membership changed >> okay but we did the testing >> I guess we just as a as select board member and a citizen when things happen
more than one year in a row there's an expectation built right so if not you then who is going to be my question so next year not having any information about a forthcoming secondary UV pilot. What
like what is happening with testing? Who is responsible for it? It's not a goal that's listed here. >> It has been discussed by the DW director as part of the steering committee. >> Right. >> And the request I made was volunteer versus resources necessary to put
together any request for resources that would be required. >> Okay. Um >> has that been reflected in our budget? >> I haven't gotten an yet. So no, it's not on the budget. No. >> Okay. So then if the steering committee is going to handle it, then we should
clarify how this committee is going to work in conjunction with the steering committee. >> Well, but but the steering committee is the city of Lynn, Lind Warner sewer, the Kings Beach steering committee. Yeah. >> You know, >> save
the harbor. Save >> every harbor. Save. you know, I don't think they're doing any anything at Fisherman's Beach, Ryzen Beach, or you know, >> nope. Of course not. >> You know that that >> but at least for Kings that there there's testing on the Swamp Sky side, there's testing on Milan side
or there's just testing Yeah. for the consent agree, right? >> Yep. >> But basically, they're asking should they have a should they have a liaison to the Kings Beach Steering Committee, which they haven't historically, >> right? >> Well, I don't think they're saying should they. They're saying they're saying they want they should. Yeah.
So, what leverage do we have to make that happen? >> We just say it. >> We just say they do it. They do it. >> Right. Great. >> You are you're the select board. That's leverage, >> right? >> So, I mean, I don't know why we haven't said it before to be honest. >> So, I >> I don't think it came up really. >> I hate to be a lawyer, but
>> do you mind voting on that? Yeah. Well, >> what was >> it's not posted in the agenda as a vote, so I don't know if I can take a entertain a vote, Brian, but we can certainly post it on a future agenda as >> we could also give our opinion tonight. >> But it's very clear that we're asking >> Here's our opinion.
>> You've made your opinion quite clear to me as the town administrator to work with the steering committee to figure out membership. >> Yeah, please. >> Thank you. >> Perfect. >> How does that work? >> Perfect. >> Great. Um so then I guess the last remaining question is the direction expectation
coordination for the coordination with sector 10 administrator DL first >> legal council if you can get it to me it would be reviewed by our council >> okay and so I think we did that last year and I don't think we ever got a review >> if it if it went to them and it hasn't
significantly changed the review will be very quick this year if it didn't then we'll get we'll get it turned around as quickly as we can >> it has significantly changed Yeah. >> Yeah. >> One thing that's really important, >> I don't think the I don't think the I think there's red lines, but I think
they're in response to comments that were received last time, and they're they don't change materially change >> the substantive requirements. There's clarification in phrases that are clarifying, but there doesn't change the meat of it. >> Great. I think a red line's helpful if
KP's already reviewed it. Kelly, can you uh do you have in your schedule there, do you have at least two, not at least, but do you have two public meetings so that people >> We do have we did. Yes, we did already do we did one public meeting, I think, if I'm remembering correctly last year
on this same thing. >> But if you're going to have if it's different, could you have two public meetings between now and town meeting? >> Oh, just to make it more accessible to to just to make it easier for people. No, by law >> just to make it really transparent. >> Well, it's required. Yeah,
>> it's for by law. >> One is >> I think it's two >> really good. >> Excellent. So, let's make sure we do that. >> I think all of us are Okay, I'll speak for myself. I think that there was support for the lateral bylaw to come
through originally. It was a unforeseen circumstances that had it pulled originally. Um, and we are excited to see it back. I think I um think it will be helpful and um so uh would like to
see it come before us Kelly. So anything you need to support that in the committee needs we will help to strive to do that >> and >> we will probably will be voting on uh next t Tuesday March 10th on the on the updated Rev Five. So you should see it
shortly thereafter. >> Thank you. I have a quick question. Have you done any work on the loss of water? 23% loss in water is over half a million dollars. And I just >> there has been one important
consideration is that um water meter inefficiencies, older water meters tend to under report um the readings. So, it's possible that a good chunk of it is due to older water meters which are already slated to be um replaced in the
coming years. So, that's a possibility that there there are other sources. Um the the tank um h has had did have a leak last year. um fire hydrant flushing and there's there's lots of reasons why
they're I think anecdotally 10% loss is super low like nobody ever achieves 10% loss. So 23 is is higher than we want it to be but it's not wild relative to what other towns experience
just on average. And to Kelly's point, it's in the capital plan for next year to begin the two-year process of replacing the meters. >> Okay, great. >> The purchase and installation. Yeah. >> Um and then in addition, if I'm you can correct me if I'm wrong, but by law, we
have to be looking every other year for doing a survey for um you know, like leaks and other things that could be in a main or something like that through with an outside consultant that DBW works with. Is that correct? >> I don't know. >> That's how it was described to me. the way you were I thought there was a
pregnant pause where you had more to add, but >> when I asked about this earlier today, >> maybe >> that there's it's a two-year cycle. We've actually been doing it every year to try to find it. And it's sort of like it's not throwing a camera in every pipe. It's listening and working uh through industry standards try to
identify it. So there's not like some smoking gun that's been found through that process. >> Right. But but to me, one of the issues is that when we have a water mane break, nobody estimates that I've seen how many gallons were lost, you know, so somebody
should take a, you know, say it's been broken for a week and and there's probably, you know, we there's nobody collecting those numbers and and and there was a huge water man B break down precinct six where they were replacing the water manes Mhm.
>> And nobody saw it because it just went out the pipe and then out to the ocean. And finally the town got a phone call from the MWR and they said, "Hey, we're adding water
to your tank more than normal. You know what's going on?" And so so there's still no estimate of how much we lost in that event. And then maybe in capital improvement there needs to be you know a float indicator
in the in the tank so we get the message yeah >> that it's draining quickly and we should be doing something I don't know >> I was just sharing what I was able to learn some this was submitted and trying to understand what process we do engage in so always opportunities to improve for sure
>> right but the question is where's where's the water going and if you could say well 5% of that went in this failure here it would help Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. And that's really why you need that tracking software to be able to to be able to take that asset management plan and make it and and and really
create that uh that dynamic aspect that we're that that's lacking today. >> Right. And that pipe, my understanding, the pipe that failed down precinct 6, it was, you know, the ring, the ceiling ring. Well, then you look at your asset
management plan and you say, "Well, well, how many other connections do we have like that that we should be looking at?" >> And and that was my next that was my next question was was the was the you know, was that specific failure? Was that a red? Was that a yellow? Was that a green? >> Yeah, I think it was green.
>> It was a green. >> Well, I don't really >> green. that I I'm just saying that that's why your asset management plan is should be ongoing because once something's green is red because it failed, well then you make the other
ones >> red or yellow. >> I have a quick question. Who is it within uh the town that is looking at mass D for the applications of these grants? because the last grant, the grant that we received with asset
management was written and coordinated with Ron Mendes um who was our treasurer at the time. So who like what department looks for that? >> As of right now, the DPW related ones
are coming from Gino and his team. So I'd have to >> I don't have a >> These aren't these aren't Marsy grants? No, I mean the water infrastructure ones that we've applied for so far have come out of Gino's shop. So, it's probably Mark that's working to coordinate it and highlight it. >> Okay.
>> Um, but I don't have the direct answer for you. I can get it for sure. >> I think it should be Patrick. >> I think now that we've got Patrick his one job, >> we'd like to keep it at that for now. Make sure he sticks around.
>> All right. Um, Kelly, did you have anything you wanted to add before we close out? No, >> no. I think this was a really helpful discussion. I think that's that's all for me. I appreciate it. >> Well, be before we close out, Madam Chairman, one of the reasons why we
ended up having this conversation uh was around the size of the committee and adding people to the committee because we have people who are very active that wanted to be on this committee. And I know I've brought it
up. I think Danielle supported me at one or two meetings and I would just like to see two individuals added as alternates to this committee and I'd like to know what what do we need to do to do this? >> The alternates will be on the agenda for
next for next meeting. >> Thank you. >> So we will discuss that at next meeting. >> Great. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> When the committee started, we had four alternates. >> Four alternates. >> And how many do we have now? >> Zero. This is not what noticed.
>> So we will we will notice this for the next agenda and we will discuss it on the next agenda. >> Thank you. >> All right. We will move on to discussion and possible vote on the Hawthorne reuse RFP responses.
>> All right. you want to just >> so yeah we as we had shared previously and I can dig it out but I do not have handy the presentation we put up last time >> we had a group that included David Rich
Valdachi myself um and Marzy that met with both proponents reviewed and scored the the proposals we provided that to you all before the prior meeting it's a it was very close score between the two of them I know you all had suggested that you wanted a little more time to
deliberate and uh also ultimately discuss here on what direction we would like to take. The only piece that I would sort of remind everyone from the procurement standpoint is the the decision is the most advantageous proposal that can be interpreted
however you would like really but it's it's most advantageous. It doesn't lean one way or the other. It's a something that you all can articulate as a body. So, >> okay. Who would like to start? >> Well, I I first would like clarification.
Um, Swampscott Center for the Performing Arts was the gentleman Johnny Ray that was here earlier. I want to understand this million dollars that we previously thought or I previously thought, I'll speak for myself, um, was an investment
they were making to the building. Right? If that's how I read it, then now he's here today saying that's not the case. So I really want to understand what exactly is the case. Is he putting in are they consider are they going to put in a million dollars
or no? >> What what is the actual situation? >> I think >> so in the I mean we can read the business model that they resubmitted. >> Right. I I was going to say the the best direction I could give is to stay within the four corners of the page that
they've submitted for both proposals and the follow-up information that we shared with each So it says that the capital expenditure for managed entities for year one is 600,000. >> Yeah. Just in the but in the but in fairness in the response dated January
16, 2026, the respondents have secured a million dollar financing commitment from a local financial institution in support of the redevelopment and activation of the Swamps Sky Center for Performing Arts. So that's where that million dollars came from. In the revised information, it >> Hold on.
>> Go ahead. Finish. >> No, in the revised In the revised information, it does say 600. So Danielle is not pulling a million dollars out of the air. >> No, I don't think any I agree. Nobody pulled a million dollars on the air. But I think what's important is the language. It says they've secured
a million dollars >> financing commitment. >> Financing commitment to support >> to support the redevelopment and activation, >> right? So they could spend up to a million dollars. doesn't say that they're going to spend a full million dollars, >> but that's what they originally said. >> Yeah. >> But he came here tonight and said that's not the case.
>> And in the in the secondary submission that they provided, >> right, >> they clarified that the capital expenditures for the building pro due to our conversation, I'm sure has been clarified to a commitment of $600,000 in one year because obviously that million dollars that they're financing, they're
going to utilize in other ways in my opinion, based on what they provided. So they weren't just going to spend the full million on capital improvements. I think they're going to use it for other things. >> The distinction I would just highlight is when they say activation that could
also mean the draw down to start like you have no income at the beginning for any new business that type of thing. >> My concern is this. The initial proposal said a million dollars. When we asked for clarification it's down to 600,000 right? Would we have ever found that out
had we not asked for that additional information or would we have just been led to believe that they're putting in a million dollars? >> Does the proposal >> as they originally indicated? >> Does the proposal say a million dollars for >> up to a million dollar? >> But it it says up to it says a million dollars, but that's for
>> that's their working capital. That's >> We don't know what that's for. Well, it doesn't say it doesn't say there it >> it says the respondents have secured a $1 million financing commitment from a local financial institution in support of the redevelopment and activation of the Swampscott Center for the Performing
Arts. Period. Next sentence. All remaining development, buildout, and operational expenditures will be funded directly by the respondent through its board and affiliated entities. So, no municipal financing or guarantees are being requested. >> Right. So, >> so actually that sentence means it's going to they're investing more than a
million dollar >> to activate and to redevelop. >> Mhm. >> So, >> but that's not what they said tonight. >> I mean, >> I think tonight he said 600,000 >> in year in year one of the building >> for capital >> for capital. >> I'm not the one that came here and made the clarification statement. So, that's
what I'm questioning. I didn't anticipate hearing that. >> So, you know, to me, I I want to make sure we're getting the the true story, right? and that we're making our determination based on fact and what we can reasonably expect to see, right? Because that's going to
matter to me. It does, right? Um, >> of course, >> you know, I have concerns with both situations, right? I I have concerns with the whole thing, but that to me, I I didn't anticipate hearing that. And for him to make that correction gives me pause.
That's all. I just want to understand truly the real deal what your goal is and with with the other proposal limited time proposal that's pretty clear right I don't really there's not a lot of gray area there might not be the strongest
thing but it's it's clear this to me is a little bit more fuzzy math and I want to really understand what what we're looking at and that it's really going to happen to be honest that's just Okay. >> So, I'm looking at both of the proposals
and especially after a meeting on Monday night. I like both the proposals. There are things I like more in one proposal versus another. You know, I like the fact that things are indoors versus
outdoors. 300,000 versus 30,000. Um, when I read it, I don't read a million-doll investment in capital investment, whereas I read it that there's a million dollar backing, which means that there's a million dollar
backing. So, you're going to have more room for your payroll, your credit line, and your bars, your setup, which is a revolving a revolving type of account. The other thing is um the individual
involved in this performing arts is an individual that has significant experience in performing arts. So that's what that's what does make me feel you know pretty comfortable with that. Then when
I look at, you know, I look at the forecast that we received on projected revenues, you know, you're also looking at 6.25% coming in on projected projected
revenue. So if you look at that, you're looking at just short of $200,000 on food and beverage. So you have food and beverage and then you have $300,000 in the rent. And whereas the other
proposal had a lot of food trucks, we don't make we don't make that food and beverage tax on food trucks. So, you know, is this a filler? It's 30 months. You know, we do have financial issues. We are trying to get to a shovel ready project. Um, is it a gamble? It's
a gamble either way. I just feel like if we have to make a gamble, you know, I have to lean more towards 300,000 versus 30,000. >> Could I could I just add two things? One, I think Doug was trying to talk at one point, so if he wants to unmute again, Doug,
>> the second part, since it's been said a couple times, the 30 months, this is through the end of June of 28. It every month that goes by, >> we're not even at 30 months, right? >> Every month that goes by gets that. Someone had said that earlier. It starts whenever we're able to get somebody starts. We only got we only received
authorization from town meeting >> for 30 months from the vote that was taken at town meeting. So that time is already >> ticking. >> It's until June 30th of 28. It >> it was a little more than 30 months at the time we voted because it happened in December, but
>> it it ends at the end of >> and just to a and just to a point that Mary Ellen made um just about the uh the FNB. So it's 75 basis points on um on the FNB. So looking at that that's to the that's the town share. So looking at
the projected revenues for Maras and the Dory restaurant they're projecting $3 million in sales in year one that would be you know at 75 basis points. It would be about $22,500 um to the town. So that's the that's the
that's the benefit. So, it's not it's not 200, but it's it's 22 uh it's 225. It it is. >> So, just to that effect, um you know, we did hear from a from a business owner on, you know, on Humphrey Street.
>> Um you know, I I do think that um you know, I do think I I like the limited time uh only proposal because it is limited uh in time, limited in scope. uh it is going to benefit I believe
local businesses by bringing them in and really having uh you know having that syn that synergy between um what is going to happen at the Hawthorne site and I like the ability for for us to try a number of things that maybe will work
maybe won't you know we don't know we're going to we're going to see what we're going to see what happens uh if that if that is chosen but I like the way that this is activating the space for as many of our 15,000 residents and uh and the region as possible. You know, there are
going to be uh you know, we're going to be able to draw folks in from you know, from all walks of life. This isn't just going to be uh you know, a dinner theater um you know, and a breakfast spot. This is going to be something that is going to happen. >> That that was just demo. It was a I mean
I I don't know how close we are to what's noticed just to put that back out there, but >> um it was a plug that was put in by the administrator. >> The budget was noticed. >> Okay. >> You're right. But that was a plug that's been in there for a couple of years that it could have been that it was to repave
a portion. It could have been demolition. It could have there is always the upper or not opportunity. There's always the risk um that there is more asbestous or something that requires more mitigation. But uh you know these are the among the same folks
and you know Mr. Watson knows this that our DPW director and Rich would have our building commissioner would have reached out to when I was walking around the last few days saying like how do we dial in a number? >> Uh so the the only real unknown is the amount of uh material that needs to be
mitigated for whatever reason. Um and that's something that we would find on site. I think it's mentioned in one of these discussion one of these proposals. Some of it is tested there. Something like asbestous we would be able to walk around and mitigate in advance and have a price in advance probably. But um they also encourage actually testing
everything that's leaving the site to make sure there's not something that's unknown. I think in light of what we heard Monday night, um, we absolutely have to make sure that the numbers that we have in place, the placeholders are not are not based on, you know,
fictitious dollars and we have to be as close to accurate dollars as possible. Here we are looking at a capital plan where there's a $2 million placeholder when in actuality the cost is probably 25% of that, right? So, how are we how are we accurately looking at our
long-term three and five-year plan if we don't even have accurate numbers represented there? So, to me that, you know, I either one of these, let me say this, these two proposals are perfectly fine. I think we have
absolutely no choice. But whichever one we pick, if we pick one, we also have to then immediately implement either an RFP or whatever it is for the long-term plan for that site, including demolition of
that building. Um I I I just don't think to Mr. For Watson's point, we have the time to sit and wait till 27 months expire to then revisit and come back here and say, "Okay, so now let's plan to take down this building and do what we need to do." We're paying what is it?
$50, $60,000 a month on this piece of property for how many months? How how long have we had it? What? Two, three, four years? I mean, and at the same time, we're talking about raising taxes close to $1,000 per per household. It's it's ludicrous, right? So whichever one
we go with, I think at the same time, simultaneously, we absolutely have got to get going on what the long-term plan is there. And to me, that long-term plan is taking down that building and getting an RFP out and getting this done because I don't think we can afford to just sit
on it and wait any any longer than we already have, you know. So, I will say I have gone through the many stages of grief related to the Hawthorne purchase and just being very honest about it because I get why we bought it. We
wanted to really to me it all boils down to control. We wanted to have control over what happened to it. We wanted to have control over what we were going to do with it or what somebody else could do with it. And so, was it worth it for $7 million? I think yes, it was. But we
absolutely unequivocally have to as soon if one of these is chosen, the ink is dry on the lease, we need to get to an RFP and RFI for the redevelopment of that property, which very well may include demolition of that building.
>> And I mean, I actually thought about like, should we demolish the building right now, David? I mean, I thought, okay, so we don't have $500,000. So, even if we went out tomorrow for RFP to redevelop based on demolition, by the time you
went through the RFP development, the responses, getting an LDA in place, having a due diligence period, and then then taking down the building, you're probably at the end of this lease. So, it it doesn't really make sense to me
not to choose one because I I was like, why would we do this? let's just take down the building. Let's do like maybe there's a lot move or something like that, but we don't have $500,000 to take down the building. Even if it's $500,000, even if it's $200,000. So, to me, it says, okay, we've been
very publicly honest about this. You guys are there for that period of time to, you know, till June of 28. And we're going to have somebody waiting in the wings >> and we are coming up with a plan whether it includes that building or not. and
we're moving on from this. This has become like >> Mhm. >> a thorn in our side which was supposed to be the jewel of the town >> and we have to be able to execute the plan and move forward. I I think demolition is possible.
>> If it's awarded, we would have them in whoever immediately to look at it and they could conceivably to the point you all are making say >> thanks. But the model that we gave you when we walked around it was ro rosecolored glasses
>> looking at it now it's different. >> All right. >> That's entirely possible. But it is an opportunity where we move from we're talking about proposals to someone's in there and looking at it and saying we can get this done. We're going to get it done or whatever. You know that that
>> we take on that risk, right? That risk is there >> of them walking >> of correct. >> Of course. Yeah. >> Instead of going with one where we don't have as much risk, right? But we're still getting something, right? That's the offset. >> I think the risk exists for both to get inside again and see it and say, >> "Sure." >> But
>> I'm just thinking food and beverage revenue from a kitchen risk, right? If one is utilizing it and one is not, that's a different situation, >> right? I was just saying tactically the building itself, you get in there, it's a different conversation once we've had it awarded and we're in that >> discussion of, you know, final terms,
but we've already laid out the draft. >> That's when we would be back. You know, someone would have more access to get in and go see it. As part of the RFP, we had any time that week. It was we, again, just to give a little more background for everyone, originally we said there's going to be like one time,
two hours, come in and see it. Yeah. >> Instead, what we said to them all, and it was first addendum, we're going to have a whole week. Just call Marzy's office. We will get you in between Max, myself, and Marzy at any point over these five days. >> Okay? >> You know, and so that was their opportunity to go in and folks could
have taken advantage of that to say, I'm going to go in two or three times. Instead, each group went in and had, you know, varying >> um amounts of time that they spent within the building. But it's an act of procurement. So, at that point, that was your opportunity. You had questions that
were developed out of that visit that we answered or, you know, were not submitted to us. And that's sort of where we are now. But I also think it's I also think as we're talking about food and beverage revenue, I think it's important to say, you know, that that the food trucks were a part of the
limited limited time only uh presentation. I'm not trying to speak for you, Mr. Kell, Mr. Keller, but I'm just going after uh and recalling uh you know, our conversation from several weeks ago and you know, you did indicate that you know, there there would be um there would be some synergies with the
local restaurants. So that's what Yeah. So, so with Yeah. So, with that, I think there's the ability to generate additional food and beverage revenue over that over and above that baseline that we have >> in addition to what the uh you know what the what the brewery what the the
>> Well, hold on. Wait, let's not engage. But Doug is on the um is Doug, if you could go ahead and make comment because I know you're um >> Yeah. >> constrained. >> Maybe he just >> he did send me a message. No. Yeah.
>> Yeah. No, he's got to >> unmute himself. >> Is he there? >> Here he is. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yes. Thank you. >> Can you hear him? >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll just state it for the record briefly. Uh for all the reasons that
Katie and Mary Ellen have stated, I'm in favor of the Swamp Scott Center for the Performing Arts. And I totally agree with Danielle that we should immediately commence uh if that is the way we go uh with the long-term planning. Thanks. Thanks, Doug.
>> Thanks, Doug. >> Doug's on an airplane, so that's why he's short today. He's not He's not normally that brief. >> Um, no offense. Um, all right. Yeah. I mean, I think we've all brought up some valid points. There's risks for both processes.
There's risks for the third process, which we've talked about. I think I've gotten myself committed in my mind that that having nothing happen is not the answer. We asked town meeting for the ability to be able to do this. We should try to see if we can execute doing this, but at the
same time, we committed to town meeting and we commit here. Again, all of us have committed to immediately moving forward with a long-term um project here so that we can, you know, really solidify the fact that this is a limited
time offer and we are going to be proposing something permanent. Um I mean, if does anybody else have additional comments before we move to vote? I I just want to say we really, you know, I just want to be sure because
we really don't need to pick either one. If we really think about this like we we don't need to award it just to award it because we said we were going to or we we said we were going to see what we would get and see if it made logical
sense. And no offense to either one of these organizations, but these are not the strongest proposals we've ever seen. And it just because we said we were going to pick one doesn't mean we have to, right? And there is a third option to David's point. And I I just I don't
think we focused enough on it. I think we're really stuck on having to pick one or the other here. And I just I'm not sure it's the right play. I'm really not. >> And I think I if I can and I think we >> Was that Doug? >> Yeah. Mhm. >> I think I think we have a great
opportunity here. We have a short window to to bring in some revenue while we're getting a project ready for shovel shovel ready. And I do think that both of these both of these proposals are
good proposals. I do think one is better than the other. um on limited times. The concerns that I have is outdoor entertainment and how that affects the neighborhood. With the um the performance center, it's indoors. It's $300,000. I think if there's risk that
something's not going to work out, there's a 30-year window, 30 day window to come out with the lease. But to miss out on an opportunity to make some additional money in there while we get to a shovel ready project, I I
personally feel that taking taking that step is in the best interest of the community. >> Yeah. And I I Danielle, I'll just reiterate because I don't disagree with you. I I think like I said I had to go through the many logics of this process before I got to this conclusion. But
even if we decided not to go with any of these, we would be carrying costs for this building, electricity, uh heat, safety, of having a vacant building for likely at least 18 months. If I think about how
the Hadley happened, right, and we put it out for RFP that we knew what was going to happen at the Hadley. We knew it was a hotel, but say we'll presuppose we know what's going to happen here. Say we want the building down. It's going to be 20% park, 30% uh parking, 50%
development. >> And that's the RFP that goes out tomorrow. By the time that goes out, gets answered, gets reviewed, we pick a winner, we work on an LDA with their council, they go through a due diligence, what they go through a due diligence period, maybe even a a finance
contingency period. They are not taking down a building. I would say the fastest is 18 months. I'm I'm happy to be wrong, but like >> and can do we not have the option to just take it down ourselves. >> I mean, of course, we have the option. We own it, but we'd have to find the
funds to do it. >> But again, we're looking at far less funds than we thought we were two weeks ago, right? We we thought we were looking at $2 million because that's what was airmarked in capital when in reality we have two estimates in front of us showing $295,000.
>> But this this estimate also shows non-UN labor. I don't this is very nice these estimates, but unless we're getting an estimate from the town, >> I would rather I would rather see. >> It's right here. Non labor. I know. But
even if we wanted to get an why I mean why wouldn't we wait to get one then at at our own >> I think we thought >> you know in our own interest. What do we we're rushing to do this? I I just I just again I think that we could be getting ourselves into more trouble than
it's worth. That's what I feel. >> Right. We're talking about if we award it to Swamp Center for the Performing Arts, we're talking about an upstairs with a puppet theater and all other types of things that they're banking on. When they get upstairs and they look at the condition of the Hawthorne, we are
the landlords of that building, right? Like it just I I don't know. I just foresee the the worst happening. And I don't I just don't know that it's a smart move for 27 months. And what is it ultimately going to bring us? Is it really going to bring us what we what they are saying it's going to? I I don't
I don't know that I'm confident. >> That's >> Yeah, I I I hear you, Danielle. Obviously, we come down on different sides of it. Um that if if they proceed, if we end up signing
a contract with them, uh they will be obligated to pay us and they will hopefully be contributing by and large what they're promising. Yeah, >> I
>> you're breaking up. >> I'm not doing it just to do something. >> Okay. I'm not proceeding just to do something. I'm ch something engaging happening. That's also a financial benefit.
>> Okay, Doug, you were breaking up a little bit, but I think >> I think we got the gist. >> We got the gist of it. Yeah. That that you're not picking it just to pick something. you understand there's a third option and that you believe that there will be a financial benefit at the end of it. I think that is what you you were trying to convey. And
to be honest, I mean, when I look at either of them, I think I want there to be success and I want there to be a financial benefit. That would be best case scenario. Worst case scenario is they just defay the cost that we were
going to have to pay. So that already is a financial benefit to us with utilities and heat. That's money we're not spending, right? Unless there is not a building there, then we're not spending on insurance or utilities or heat because there's no building there.
>> So, for the next 24 months, is the cost of heat, property insurance, and utilities greater than $500,000? >> Who knows if the roof caves in, if we have another storm like we just had,
I don't know what could potentially go wrong in an antiquated building like that, right? But we're not committing to any capital expenditures on the building, >> right? >> So the roof caves in and what happens? The contract is void because we can no longer >> if the roof people in that building. What do we do?
>> Yeah. What happens? >> Nothing happens. >> Can you restate the question since you were both speaking and I'll see if I can answer it. Can you say it again, Danielle? I'm sorry. I you >> Sure. Let me let me say it really really slowly. >> Thank you. >> If there are people in the building and the roof caves in, what do we do? that I
mean if there's people in the building and people would be injured and we would rely on insurance. I I >> but these are things that we have to consider as a landlord as a landlord of of a an organization that's going to occupy two floors inside that building,
right? Like it just is. And maybe we'll get lucky. We very well could. But maybe we won't. And I just don't know that I feel comfortable saying, "Okay, well, let's just take a chance." But I get the other, you know, I get the other side of it also. It's just uh it's
a scary proposition. So, should we take a vote? >> Yeah. I just want I just want to be clear. There's no indication from Max or anybody that the roof's going to cave in. I mean, I know this is a risk any risk that you could take in any building. Unfortunately, something could happen here and something could happen at SCS and >> yes
>> and Swampsite Elementary. Even though the building's brand new, there's always a risk. I understand the risk is greater in the older building. I get that. But I don't think we should be afraid of trying to activate the space. We ju literally people were just in it. I
mean, >> right. But we all tooured it also, right? Let's not pretend like we went in there and everything was perfect. No, of course nobody's I don't think anybody's pretending that >> you know there were there were challenges there like for us to say that you know they were running people you know restaurant was running two months
ago. Sure. True. But let let's let's understand what we're setting ourselves up for and and and if we honestly decide to go that way we do. Then we just you know >> and we will find out more in the in the 30-day due absolutely >> a lot more.
All right. Um, so I guess we will move to a I will take a motion for a vote. >> So I would like to motion Well, the question is how do how do we actually vote? We have two proposals.
>> So it would be to award to award the RFP to >> further for limited time only. So I would make a motion to award the proposal to the Swampscott Performing Arts number one and
>> center Swansite Center for Performing Arts. >> And if they choose not to take it, I would propose propose it to go to the next candidate, the limited >> limited time only. So I would do it in that order.
>> That would be my proposal. my motion. >> Seconds with delay. Is I just >> You got it. >> Yes, we got it. Thank you. I just want to make sure. Are we able to Is that >> Are we able to vote that? >> I am uncertain. >> I am uncertain also. >> So then let me change my motion. So
>> I would just do one. >> I'm going to make a motion to award >> uh award this RFP to the center >> the what what is it called? center for >> Swanson Center for Performing Arts.
>> Doug, we have second. >> Thank you. Okay, so um we have to take a roll call vote because Doug's on an airplane. So, uh Doug, >> I >> move on to discussion and possible vote on town actions related to ICE and the
federal immigration enforcement. Thank you, Chief Casada, for waiting so long. >> No problem. And so just very briefly on each of the last two items, I have a quick update. I had asked the chief to come. I'm sorry that I made you wait this long to speak. Um what we have been
continuing to have conversations the chief with other um chiefs of police and also with our um legal counsel. What we would like to do is to come back on the 18th with both a policy for the police to be accepted as well as a
narrowly defined so that it is it can be as useful as possible um prohibition for any use of town property. We want to make sure that it reflects what's possible. We're happy to hear anything that you all wanted to share or any questions obviously um that would reflect the will of the board but in
terms of trying to have a prohibition that is sticky enough to be meaningful we we do request two more weeks to be able to put something together. >> Yeah. I mean I think just for me even post our proclamation there was a lot of chatter obviously
about whether even you know what what some towns have already done is constitutional. Obviously, I I don't want to just stand on circumstance and say we we did it just to do it. I want it to mean something. So, if that requires more time from town council,
absolutely. I think what's important for me here is that we are not reactionary. We're trying to be proactive. We we this is an issue across the nation, but fortunately, it's not an issue in Swampscott today that we are, you know,
well aware of. And so I would like to be proactive about it and prepare our citizens so that god forbid it becomes an issue. We exactly know what how they can move and how it is safe and how we are you know maintaining the values of Swampscott for the town of Swanscott.
>> In speaking to uh fellow police chiefs as well as um legal counsel, it's largely unchartered legal territory. That's that's been uh legislation that has recently come out uh in reference to
the governor's uh legislation and the executive order including the city of Boston uh Chelsea Lynn's proclamation. Those are largely untested. So, uh I'm not a lawyer. I hate to say it depends.
What it comes down to is federal supremacy versus state sovereignty. And that is the million-dollar question. >> Yeah. I mean, we we may not have an answer in advance, a a substantial
enough answer in advance of us making a decision, but >> like obviously I would like to have a little bit more understanding from KP like what the sticky wickets are and how we can try to either >> we get in them and we don't care or we at least >> Exactly. we're we're navigating them
away from them. >> And go ahead. >> Do we feel that we're communicating enough to people of what to do in the event that they see they if they think that there's a situation in their neighborhood? I mean,
>> I just that's my concern. People really clear. >> I think that uh it should be outlined specifically in speaking to my fellow colleagues uh police chiefs in the on the Northshore. Uh I know Salem, city of Salem is currently working on their
policy, their immigration policy, their immigration non-inforcement policy. Uh as well as uh the Beverly just completed theirs and I have a copy of of Beverly's uh that is other towns. What I've been
seeing is either they're putting a town proclamation and the the police department immigration policy is separate. So, uh, the city of Lynn has, uh, general orders, their policy that
specifically outlines what to do for if if for police officers. Say for instance, if a community resident from Lynn calls the police department and they're and they they're not sure whether there are police officers, people who are masked, uh, who might
have logos that say police. Um, if they have a question, the police will respond. Um, we will also or I'm sorry, Lynn, the the police department will also try to confirm with DHS, ICE, CBP, whichever fed federal agency it is, and
confirm whether they are there or not. If they get confirmation, then they'll advise the caller that is DHS, that is ICE, that's CBP, uh, and then they won't respond. But if if a resident calls and they end up calling 911 and not the 80%
that call the business line, so the 20% that call the 911 number, is that 911 number going to be really clear saying sending a a Swam police officer out there to deal and recognize what is going on? >> If there's if there's any question uh
about the credibility of anybody there, police will be responding. >> Our police will be there. >> Yes. >> Okay. And that's something that's been communicated at least back to when Captain Cable was here. >> Yes. Um, we first started talking about
this in January of 25. >> Do we have that on our website? >> What to do? I mean, >> we have the meeting. So, the chief and I could certainly put something together. >> Just do like a little fact sheet, >> one page. >> Yeah, >> definitely. that this is what >> the police website that the police maybe
could share on their Facebook page that we could share on the town page just to say >> we got this >> yeah we we understand and this is what this is the >> um >> it it does seem that um almost all the the agencies that I've read the policies
are all very very similar >> so it's >> clearly vetted through legal counsel >> so they're all exactly the same >> they really are they really are and then we all have the same guidance from the Mass Chiefs of Chiefs of Police Association that is giving chiefs and
their communities guidance into how to respond to uh these type of situations. >> Okay. So there is how the police responds, how the town responds, and then how the board would like to respond. So, I think we've made our proclamation and now
we're asking to make sure that, you know, we figure out legally and appropriately how police and town will move forward and you guys are vetting that through. So, we will hopefully have you at the back at the next meeting or you >> we will be. Yeah, we will definitely present at the next meeting.
>> Okay, great. Any additional questions for chief or >> I I have one more additional question. So, are we really talking about in the event ISIS is here, we're talking about their use of our our town property? Is that what we're really looking at? So
what we've seen I've seen both from town proclamations the town it's not just the police department but some of the towns I know like Arlington uh Brookline some I've recently seen uh it'll be a town policy saying that there will be no IC
DHS agents on any town or city property. Um, and then that will be the overlying policy for all town property just like Governor Governor Healey's executive order of uh state facilities. There will be no ICE agents
on any state facilities. So >> I I think is the distinction no staging because I don't know that we can prevent them from >> coming onto property. Right. >> It's using it for staging. That was the distinction I thought like the mayor and the governor had, mayor Woo and the
governor that >> it's to keep them sort of out of city and state property in the staging. But obviously, >> but what in in speaking to uh KP law, what that they have seen is if you if the city the state says you cannot use
our property, well, they'll be at a nearby public park and they'll still be >> in the area, right? So, you can't prevent them. >> It's it's been untested. >> And that's how we're worried about how narrowly we need to tailor it to make sure it's something that >> it's effective.
>> Right. But I don't want to dissuade you. And I said this, David, while you were out of the room, but from expressing the will of the board at any point, whether it's tonight or in two weeks, even if what we bring to you is not something that goes as far as I think that's an important distinction to make as well.
We'll have a policy for police. We'll put together what we can on the town side and then obviously everything else you guys want to do from there is >> 100% up to you. >> Very good. >> Okay. Uh the council on aging is being delayed from the agenda.
>> We are going to push that to the 18th as well. Bob, >> how long are we going to be here on the 18th? >> H >> how long are we going to be here on the 18th? Everything's coming to the 18th then. >> Just two things. those two. >> Um >> Bob Powell's Well, that's >> the budget's going to be on every single
week. Get comfy. >> Bob Powell, who was going to do the presentation with Heidi, head of the council and chair of uh Swampska for all ages as well. Their family welcomed a grandchild. >> Congratulations. >> And so he was trying to balance being here versus going to see the grandchild.
And I after talking to you encouraged him >> to see the grandchild first and we can wait a couple of weeks to get the presentation. So I'll continue to coordinate with him and Heidi. um in preparation for that presentation as well. >> Sounds wonderful. Congratulations to Bob and his family. Um
we will move on to the consent agenda which is approval of the minutes from January 21st and February 11th. >> Do we have minutes? >> Do we have the minutes? >> They were in the front of the >> In the pocket. Oh, >> in the pocket. Ah,
>> in the pocket. Would you like to wait, David? I'm I'm good. Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> Uh roll call. Mary Ellen. >> I. >> Danielle. >> Hi. >> David. >> I. >> Doug.
>> I. >> And I am an I. Um we'll move on to select board time. Doug, do you have anything while you're unmuted? Nope. Okay. Um, anybody like to start? Would
like to go? >> Uh, I can start. I Is Mr. Moritzky here? >> Nope, not here. >> Okay. >> Got it wrong. >> Um, Mr. Doulette, thank you very much for being here tonight and bringing us the video. >> There's one more. >> Is Is there someone else there?
>> Night. >> Oh, and Mr. Bashim, thank you Nate Bashim for being here. I couldn't see you from but thank you again for your hard work. And I also want to congratulate uh two people. I want to congratulate our DPW
our DPW director Gino Christa for becoming a grandpa. >> Um and I also want to congratulate the Engles family. the Engles family. There are the Engles and the Palmer family and they are people who settled this
community and they just welcomed their 14th generation um Engles into uh into the world. Well, this is this is pretty exciting, especially uh as we get ready to welcome
our 250th anniversary and we talk a lot about the Glover House and we actually have people who are direct descendants of the revolution and have homes and and properties here in town. So, we we've got deep deep roots here. So,
congratulations. >> Congratulations. Anyone else? Okay. >> Uh, I do just want to quickly appreciate um, Shannon for uh, giving us some new formatting for the minutes and creating some
efficiencies. She's like hit the ground running. So, I just want to appreciate all the effort that she's put in on creating new processes and procedure and making her mark for us. Thank you, Shannon. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second.
>> We have to roll call. Although Doug's gone. >> We lost Doug. Well, let's still roll call just in case. >> Doug. David. >> Hi. >> Danielle, >> I >> Marielen. >> Hi. >> And I am an I. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.