Thank you. Good evening. Calling to order the Swamp Scott Select Board July 7th regular session. This meeting is being recorded. >> I'm hearing feedback. Do you hear that? Good. You're good now. Uh, can we please rise for the pledge of
allegiance? >> We have the boys. >> Yeah. Did you want to believe? >> 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. >> Okay, we will begin with the town administrator's report. Mr. Connors. >> Good evening. Um, can everyone hear me? Okay. Okay. Uh, I have a brief update and then I'm happy to take any questions. I wanted to start with the
3rd of July uh, celebration and event. I want to begin by thanking the whole team that put it together. Um, it's obviously a huge undertaking and it was a great night for the community. Uh, it it takes months of planning, long days of hard work and um, you know, many people across town departments all working
together to make this work. Uh a ton of people contributed, but I I just wanted to call out specifically uh three in particular. It's uh Steve Luck at the police department who leads the emergency planning and response if necessary. Uh and then Charlotte and Christine at rec recreation who also put
a ton of time into it. They are not the only ones. Uh DPW, almost everyone participates at some point throughout the day either in planning, cleanup, or uh in assisting with public safety. Uh there's so many different folks that worked hard, but I did want to call them out specifically. Uh I wanted to give an
update uh on Ankor Food Pantry. I know it's something that uh members have asked about. We have a signed occupancy and group and use agreement uh executed by both we and uh Ankor Food Pantry. Uh it continues on uh with the same uh usage. They're carrying insurance
contributing to utilities and it's a huge community benefit. So, we're really excited that we're going to be continuing in the same location uh and continuing to support their their service to the community. Uh I I wanted to give a brief update on the transitional audit as it was called by
the town meeting of May of 25. Uh this is something that there was money set aside for and as I sort of came into the role and Patrick and I both came into the roles that we are now in. Uh we engaged with CLA to complete that work. They delivered that at the end of June.
So, at the next meeting, we'll give a brief update and we'll also share uh both the update and the actual audit itself with town meeting members via email and post it on the town website. Uh that was for water, sewer, and recreation is what we ended up focusing on. It is not a full audit. It is
something where we're looking at transactions and best practices and making sure that going forward with this opportunity with the change in administration, change in uh headed recreation. Uh we're just doing the best we can and sort of all the best practices and best business practices are being used. Uh on the HR front, I
want to give a couple of person personnel updates. Uh first, I'm happy to welcome our new customer service supervisor, Erica McCabe. She started on Monday. Erica joins us from the city of Salem where she was the principal account clerk. We're thrilled to have her on the team. We also had
today uh the first day for Yanel Espinosa Garcia who's joining us as a summer local finance fellow with the Commonwealth Fellow Program. Uh he spent a few weeks working with do and DLS to get up to speed and now spends the rest of the summer with us. This is a program
uh that works with fellows from across the state that are uh enrolled at both uh state and community colleges that want to get into a future in municipal finance. It's a really uh significant help for us because it is someone that is trained, knows where to find things
on DLS and do uh and can support both Liam and Patrick throughout the summer. So, we're excited to have him. Uh and again, we welcome him today. I I want to highlight something else that came up on the third which was parking at Hawthorne. Just so folks uh know that we have been in continuing conversations
with uh the new tenant, the Swapscott Center for the Performing Arts. Um they had posted, I believe, on the second or third, but we're uh engaging in it on the third with a a paid parking program, which is something that both by our agreement and by zoning is not an
acceptable use of the property. I had uh several conversations uh with uh the tenant. uh he understood where we were coming from. He's looking for every opportunity he can to figure out a way to both support circulation uses uh of the property that support other businesses in ways that can support
their efforts. Um but I I did sort of walk through where in our agreement and both and in zoning that commercial parking use is not an acceptable use right now. So we'll continue the conversation to look for creative ways to support their efforts, but we know that this is one that that won't work very well for us. Um, finally, I I I
have another thank you for the Strawberry Festival and parade. Obviously, the the festival itself was great. There were so many volunteers, vendors, and even a World Cup game that happened to be happening at the same time. So, it was a great crowd and a great turnout. Um, I want to single out Janelle Cameron, though. Janelle's put
time into this over decades uh in supporting and growing that parade and making sure that every year it's something that's really successful for the community. Uh, as anyone who was there knows, uh, she was the grand marshal and she was letting everyone know it was her last parade organizing.
Uh, so we've been really fortunate to have her. We'll obviously be looking for other volunteers to, uh, together sort of fill in that role and help us make sure that we can continue to be successful. Um, but I thought it was really important to recognize her specifically and the years of service that she had put into that. Um, and with that, I'm happy to take any questions
you'all may have as well. >> Um, I'm glad you said that about Janelle Cameron. So Janelle Cameron really sets the standard in this town for volunteering and volunteering with a smile. Like that woman works. She she just sets the bar and at times when I
don't want to volunteer and I don't want to get out of bed, I think Janelle Cameron's not staying at home. So it makes you just get out there and and I hope a lot of people will just follow in her footsteps or even a quarter of her footsteps. So I really appreciate Janelle and I appreciate you saying
that. Um, on the audit, did the audit that's coming out, did that audit also include procurement? >> It was procurement within water sewer was sort of there were a handful of transactions that they looked at. So, that'll be part of the presentation. >> Okay. So, that'll be out. That'll be out when you see that on the Ankor food. Um,
I did have some questions on anchor on the Ankor food pantry lease and I'd like to see if we can get a request that they have uh more hours. >> Okay. >> Open if that's a possibility and if it's an issue with um volunteers, we can call Janelle or because Janelle
is not going to be doing the parade. So, but if we can get more hours in there, I think they only have two days. And the other question I have is uh it's my understanding at Ankor Food Pantry we also support NATO in this endeavor. Yet
Nant doesn't put any financial bones into this um into what we do here. And it's the Swampscott citizens that are financing the property, financing the capital costs, and I think partially financing electricity or utilities if that's the
case. And I think and if we're going to be servicing other communities, other communities really need to step up and put some dollars into it, too. So, whatever it's going to take to get something from NATO, I really like to encourage that. Um, I do support signing
the lease. I just would like >> to get a couple other benefits in here. Um, and then you brought up the new hires and um, last Sunday I happened to meet a uh, a new firefighter, Ben
Rossman, and it occurred to me that in probably in the last 10 months, we haven't had a new firefighter or a new police officer come in and get sworn in. We haven't had retirement. And I would really like to make sure that we get back into that routine because I think
it's a we're a small community. try to stay a small community and I think it's important that people get to recognize have an opportunity to recognize these people that are coming on board and just take a second to have a face to a name and so we always swear them in right here and so I would like to get that
going again. >> Okay. >> Okay. And the retirement we had a retirement >> I learned at the retirement meeting we had a retirement from the fire department. I think it was a captain or a lieutenant that served for 20 years and I think this is a great
environment to say thank you publicly. So, if we could get those type of things going, I'd appreciate that. >> Absolutely. >> And that's it. >> Thank you. >> Wayne, do you have any comments? >> Uh, I second your comments about um Janelle. Um, she is uh an absolute gem
for the amount of hours and time that she has put into this uh community volunteering. I mean, I've known her for 25 years and um never a time she doesn't do it with a smile on her face and um really it's um sad to see her wind down
in this role, but um uh she sets she she raises the bar every time. Um I did have a question for you, Nick, about Cedar Hill. Um there's been inquiries from the neighbors about wanting a uh public
hearing. Um and as well I just is there any update that you have? I know last time we talked about a meeting with the uh the dealership. Um do we have any other plans for talking about what the the
parking situation should be? So, the last time that they came before the board, I think there was concern further up the street and is it Bay View that's also up there >> that we would basically be squeezing
users further away from Humphrey. >> And we wanted to see how the circulation improved with the hash uh white lines at the bottom and on the corner of Humphrey. have the have the discussion with Four Seasons to make sure that they were sticking to the number of parking
spots that they have which are all meant to be there's a parking plan that was part of the um ZBA decision on them. Um we reminded them of that. They were thankful that we were having a discussion because they said in the past town administration, not elected officials but town administration had not been receptive to having any any
conversation with them. Um, so I think the next step would be to understand and I I I think I got the same email that you did that there's sort of a suggested plan for parking. Uh, it would be a question about whether or not it's too similar to what had been proposed by uh,
Captain Cable, which you know, again, Bayiew and further up on Cedar Hill, there was a concern that it would just push parking as opposed to trying to solve the issue. What we did to try to solve the issue was improve circulation at the bottom. I don't want to say that Gino's guys have definitely done the
vegetation management, but they were supposed to. And so I'll check in with Gino on that >> to make sure that the non-residential side was also cleared a little bit to improve the amount of space in the the sightelines. >> So So when we when we originally met, what's it a like a month and a half ago? Uh when we originally started talking
about the plan, um I believe the residents really wanted to have an interactive discussion with the select board and I'd like to at least give them that opportunity. So, if as acting chair Danielle or as town administrator, if we could set up a a public hearing so that
we can have an open conversation about that, I think the uh the residents in that area would appreciate it. >> Sure. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you. >> Did you have anything else, Wayne? >> No, that's it. >> Ted, >> just to carry off of that point, I think and and you had mentioned the parking
um issue at the Hawthorne. Um during that initial meeting about Cedar Hill Terrace, I know we had discussed parking enforcement on and along Humphrey Street throughout the entire strip and enforcement along some of the ancillary streets. I know we'll be talking about Engles Terrace at some point later this evening. Cedar Hill is one of them. I
would just put a request that we have a understanding of how parking enforcement is managed. I guess um I know you've provided some some numbers. >> What's that? or not managed.
>> Well, um I know you've provided some numbers, but having an understanding of how it's how it's being managed and and uh so we can have a comprehensive conversation about that because I know there are businesses who were hoping to be able to use the Hawthorne lot and obviously you know things have happened
so they're not able to to some degree. Um but we're going to have I think we're going to continue to have parking issues. Engles Terrace, I'm sure we'll hear from residents parking issues that they're having. I know we've had the dentist who owns an office near the area um have his parking issues. So, I think we just owe it to ourselves to have a
better understanding of how we're administering parking enforcement all along Humphrey Street. >> I think it might be useful to have the chief and Captain Cable there for the same evening, if not participating directly in the discussion. >> Agreed. >> Um about Cedar Hill, so it's not parking
only meeting, but it's certainly parking heavy and we have the the right folks in the room. >> Yeah. And I I would just encourage the conversation. Obviously, Cedar Hill is important part of the conversation, but townwide, especially on and along Humphrey Street is going to be important, and we're going to continue hearing about it until we get proactive
about how we're going to help solve that issue. The town had a I believe it was MAPC or Kleinfelder conducted a parking uh study for Humphrey Street in 2017, I want to say, that Marzy's office worked to administer. Um, and I don't think the town has enacted on any of the
recommendations that that study provided in the years since we've had it. So, it might be worth dusting it off and having a having that be part of the conversation. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Did you have anything else to >> for the town? Thank Janelle like my
colleagues here um and uh and Charlotte in the rec department not only for the third and for the Strawberry Festival but uh I scroll on Reddit before bed. That's how I like you know clear my mind and everywhere on Reddit is giving
Swampscott tons of praise for the World Cup games on the lawn like everywhere. It's awesome. It's really cool. We we actually got an email that came in to Shannon this week from two gentlemen from Scotland >> that stayed here. >> Yeah. >> Did they put that cone up on the monument? >> They promised it was not them. Actually,
they said we did not do anything with any cones in your town. Um but they were very grateful for not only the fact that we had the games available. So when they were not trying to get down to Foxboro, they were able to watch them outside with the ocean in the background, but just generally how the town had welcomed
>> Yeah. >> every visitor. they came to those events but also that they saw throughout town whether they were eating, drinking, or whatever else they did while they were here. >> Yeah, there are a lot of great Scots in town over the last few weeks. >> Anyway, thanks. That's it for me. >> I think there's one more. >> Daniel, can I add one more thing?
>> Sure, why So there there was I didn't know if you were going to make an announcement about the um 8th of July reading of the Declaration. >> So the I did not I I did not have that on my list, but the the Declaration of
Independence and the first concert both will be sort of backtoback tomorrow night on the town hall lawn. Uh and that's something that Representative Armeni has brought to town and worked with the historic commission and others um to put together the reading in advance of the the first concert of the summer. Great.
>> So, it starts at about 5:30, 5:45. >> Great. >> Thank you for reminding me. >> So, just to echo, I mean, it has been a tremendous amount of entertainment and work that's come from the recreation department the past month. I don't know
how they do it, quite honestly. It's bigger than I've ever seen. The response has been huge. Um, it's just really building a significant sense of community. It's it's fun. It's lively. Um, it's very well done. So, kudos to Charlotte and Christina and all of the
volunteers. I don't have enough words for Janelle Cameron. I've known her for a long time. I've worked with her for almost 10 years. Um, she's amazing and she's a huge loss that she's stepping down, but I completely understand it because she's got a very busy life and she's put in a lot of hours and years.
Um, we're lucky to have had her for as long as we did. So, um just to reiterate though the situation with the parking at Hawthorne, I was dismayed to see um charging for parking at the rate that it
was being charged for holiday. Um it's just not what we intended, right? That's that's the main takeaway there. And it's a disappointment to me um in terms of the people that live here that were able to park for free a couple of months ago and now all of a sudden this
sign is put up and you know not only are we not allowing them to park there but we're now charging them $40 for a day. So I'm glad you handled that and addressed it. Um that's that wasn't the intent for that space. So thank you for that. I don't have anything else. So
thank you for your report. Um, we'll now move on to public comment. Just to reiterate, there is a very strict 3minut time limit for anyone coming up for public comment tonight. You can certainly speak on anything that we have listed on the agenda here. Um, happy to
take anybody public comment. John, should you want to come right up? Just please state your name and your address. And Mr. Connors, can you keep time for us? Yeah, >> John, I'll just let you know when there's like 30 seconds left. That's
okay >> on the 3 minutes. So, you'll >> He'll give you the wave when there's 30 seconds left. >> Thank you. >> I thought you said I took so long to get >> No, no, no. It hasn't started yet. >> Oh, no. >> You're down at two and a half, John. >> So, I'm I'm here to speak. Can you hear
me? Okay. I'm here. John Jantis, um um >> Blaney Street, >> 61 Baney. Um, also a school committee member. Um, I'm here to speak on the hotel project. Um, we just, my wife and I, Siobhan, who's here, we just attended
the community event and um, just a couple takeaways from that that I thought were important to to raise here. So, one one of the reasons we were told that these meetings occur is to be able the neighbors can provide feedback. the
developer can take this feedback um back to the planning um planning board or plan their planning and you know incorporate suggestions as they can. Um we've raised a concern as direct to Butters right across the street from the
school that um the parking as it had been configured pe as people exited the parking lot their headlights would shine directly onto our house into the living room into the upper bedrooms. And we we have voiced concerns going back probably
well over a year and a half on this. And one of the um takeaways from this meeting was that Dixon, the representative who's who is here, said that they are going to make the entrance
into the parking lot a oneway in and the exit will be further down Readington Street closer to where Oyo is. That right right there. So, um, no one will be coming out of the parking lot >> pointing towards our house. Um, I did
ask a question about people just circling around the parking lot. Um, you know, if they're going to have mitigation with BMS or fencing or other light mitigations, and Dixon did say that, you know, that's part of their plan. So, we'll be watching to make sure
that that happens. Um the the other thing that um was was raised, we also raised it as a concern, but some of the neighbors who were there raised it was just a general concern on parking. Uh with the project,
um our understanding is that the lot has the lot across the street from us has 62 spaces or will have 62 spaces. Uh the project contemplates 167 total to take care of guests, employees, uh people
visiting the restaurant. Um so our question is what's being done to address that parking? And we weren't the only ones that raised that concern tonight. And um what we heard was that there is some maybe solutions with the church,
maybe some solutions with um the arch dascese. Um but that was it. That's all that's all we heard from from the 30 seconds. >> Oh, thank you. So that that's all we heard on that. So hopefully some other creative solutions like maybe shuttling
people from um you know satellite lots might be uh an option. Um, so I think um, yeah, just in closing, um, it's already a tight neighborhood. So, we're watching
this very closely for, you know, the light pollution, the noise pollution, um, parking, all of it impacts us. So, you know, we ask that the board consider all of these things as this thing moves forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Do we have anybody
else? Yep. Can you just step right to the microphone? >> Hi, my name is Al Williams um from 11 Cedar Hill Terrace Swampscott and I'm just uh here to talk about the parking issue. Uh since May 4th meeting, there's been some improvements. The white lines
have been put in down the bottom of the hill and that's improved traffic coming and going. And the DPW today actually in the rain did a great job of clearing on the left side the brush. So >> you won't have to bother Gino. He's busy enough probably with other stuff, but
they did a great job doing that. But I'm here to request um a uh public hearing as uh Mr. Spritz uh said. I had sent an email today. I just think it's more of a uh an efficient way of talking about things instead of coming up and saying,
you know, your your bit and then that's it, you know, no discussion. Um I sent also today a modified parking plan and um I also sent because I'm not sure if the board was aware of this, but this all started almost going on two
years in October. I had sent um our neighborhood's petition, signed petition to the police and um then it transferred to the board this this um spring and um so that the reason that's I just didn't
know if you guys had that. Um and um that's why I sent that to you. Um let's see. Um yeah, and as far as um your your point uh Mr. corner about the Bay View residents.
They're talking out about a problem that doesn't exist right now. It may exist, it may not if there was resident parking. Right now, there is a parking there's a parking issue on on Cedar Hill and it's due to the to the uh commercial built uh properties parking there and
overstaying. You know, there's already been a a a car parked there. Um, it was a little reprieve after you guys probably talked to them and then it's starting to get back to normal again. You know, slowly it'll it'll it'll increase. But my point is it's it's not
a problem until it is a problem. And I think people in general are lazy and they're not going to park up there. But if they do, then they can address that problem. But right now it's it's not a problem. The problem is Cedar Hill Terrace. and I just appreciate your uh time and also I would appreciate you
know having a public hearing on it. It would be uh very helpful. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for your email also. >> And I see we have one online Shannon. >> Yeah, please. >> So, um good evening. I'm Michael Garvey.
I live at 85 Monument Avenue which is uh near Howland Park and I'm commenting about the lack of enforcement of the leaf blower BL ban during summer and the noise in the homestead area as a result.
Um my comments mostly relate to last year and uh in challenges to the landscape uh gardeners they uh when I suggest that I might call the
police they laugh and say go ahead. Uh I did call the police several times last year and they uh have the protocol that they will record my um uh
they will record my uh my comment and and perhaps send a cruiser. I never saw a cruiser. >> Great. Um there's for example the people on Walker Road seem to think it's important to leaf blow the entire street. Uh and you can imagine the noise
and how long it goes on. So um we have a bylaw. It's not being enforced. And I'll just end my comments there. >> Thank you. >> Do we have anybody else for public comment?
>> Brian. So, um, at the select board meeting on June 17th, I listened to your discussion about what elements you want to discuss for inclusion in a Hawthorne site RFP. It is correct that you will have to
define many individual elements, but what is needed before that is an identification of the larger goals for development and an appreciation for the radically different directions that are possible on the site. Although the RFP should contain room for a potential
developer's imagination, at the same time a good RFP will commit to a direction, an articulated set of larger goals, and lastly, a vision. What whatever the site plan solution, in addition to defining the nine items on your list tonight and others to come, a
great plan will possess good spatial relationships and create a coherent and attractive sense of place. When we travel to urban areas, we seek out notable places, cathedrals, civic piazas, outdoor cafes, and vibrant places where planners have created
memorable and image imageful places. What the select board needs to do here, identify a direction for the RFP, will take some familiarity on your part with the principles of town planning. If you look at the 25 or 30 site plans that the Horththong community developed, you
would ideally consider and grasp the many different spatial relationships that each plan would create if built. You would see, for example, that removing the existing restaurant building is the key to opening up the 1.4 acre site for all sorts of
possibilities. If we remove the building, no additional land purchase is necessary to achieve a wonderful blend of uses across the site. It is often difficult for lay people to understand and feel feel the three-dimensional relationships represented within a flat
drawing. The select board needs to develop that skill in order to select a development direction for the plan direction that you choose would rearrange even the sequence of the items on your list tonight and it would change the answers to the checklist as the
answers will depend on the plan direction or vision for the site. An architect or town planner would start not yet with your list, but with a vision of what is fitting and best for the site in the context. That takes considering first whether the existing
building stays or goes and then imagining and pursuing something outstanding that is not yet now in the site. You could then produce an RFP that contains a clear compass. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. Anyone else for public
comment? Okay, seeing as none, we will go ahead to new and old business. The first item is a proclamation. Let's see here. Designation of July as park and
recreation month proclamation by the select board. Um, I'll go ahead and read that proclamation. Whereas parks and recreation is an integral part of communities throughout this country including Swampscott. And whereas parks and recreation promotes health and wellness, improving the
physical and mental health of people who live near parks and recreation centers. And whereas parks and recreation promotes time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being and alleviating illnesses such as depression, attention deficit
disorders, and Alzheimer's. And whereas parks and recreation encourages physical activities by providing space for popular sports, hiking trails, waterfront programs, and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles. And whereas parks and recreation programming and education
activities such as out of school time programming, youth sports and environmental education are critical to childhood development. And whereas parks and recreation increases a community's economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local
tax base, increased tourism, the attraction and retention of businesses, and crime reduction. And whereas parks and recreation is fundamental to the environmental well-being of our community. And whereas parks and recreation is essential and adaptable infrastructure that makes our
communities resilient in the face of natural disasters and climate change. And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the ecological beauty of our community and provide a place for children and adults to connect with one another, nature and rec and
recreate outdoors. And whereas the US House of Representatives has designated July as Parks and Recreation Month and whereas Swampscott recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation resources. Now therefore, be it resolved by the Swampscott Select
Board that July is recognized as Park and Recreation Month in the town of Swampscott. And again, I just want to say we're incredibly grateful. I'm incredibly grateful for the parks and recreation department, our open space and recreation committees. Um, very
hardworking and really welld deserved. So, I'm happy to sign this proclamation with everybody else. >> Thank you. And then we have another proclamation, I think, tonight. Let's see. Marielleen, do you want to take the lead on that one? I know that it's a
recognition of Eagle Scout Aiden Tat. >> Sure. Um, once again, Swam is in the position of having another Eagle Scout. So, our community, our parents, and our kids are
just amazing at the hard work and the accomplishments they they do. And tonight we have the opportunity to acknowledge Aiden Tate. So Aiden, you want to come on up here? Aiden, let me just read this for you.
Okay. So whereas the rank of Eagle Scout is the highest honor that can be attained by a Boy Scout and takes years of dedication and commitment to achieve and whereas Eagle Scouts act as leaders and role models in the community. The
Eagle Scout Award was a distinction that will follow Aiden Tate throughout his life and will be a beacon to others of the leadership, quality, and commitment he has shown. And now, therefore, be it proclaimed that on behalf of the entire select board and the town of Swampscout,
we do hereby congratulate and recognize Aiden for his achievement of the rank of Eagle Scout and urge others to join us in extending congratulations to Mr. Tate. In witness whereof, we have here until set our hands and cause to be affixed to the great seal of
the town of Swamscott, Massachusetts, the 7th day of July, 2026. So, one more thing I want to add. In the town of Swamcott, we have plaques that are in town hall. If you walk in and look to your left and we have every name
of every individual who has either achieved the highest level of the Girl Scouts, which is called the Gold Award, or the highest level of the Boy Scouts, which is called the Eagle Scout. So, Aiden will be our next um plaque on
there. So, I hope you go down and check that out. So, can you tell us about what you achieved? >> Uh yeah. So, for my Eagle Scout project, um I worked with St. Bron's Church in Swampscott. Um, and they had this um, like Christmas nativity decoration
called a crash that was blown over and destroyed by the winds a couple years ago. And so my project was uh, working with them to recreate a new one that would be better suited for their needs. >> Amazing. Great. Nice work. Done. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you, AIDEN.
>> Take a picture. >> Yeah. Okay. Do you want to do a picture? Yes. Yes. Do you mind if we get a picture? Can we get a picture with you? >> Hold on. Get out of the way. >> Just come right over here. Congratulations.
>> One more. >> Thank you. >> And we're going to get that to you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, >> that's great. >> We are now moving on to review and discussion of construction drawings for Hotel Delmare Swanscott. Like to welcome
Mr. Dixon Mallerie, director of business development for the hotel. Thank you for having me. >> Welcome. Thanks for coming. Thank you for coming. Is >> that working? I don't hear you. >> Oh, no. Ethan, >> you should you should be good now. >> Is that good? You're good. >> You're good now.
>> Hello. >> There you go. >> Oh, that's working. >> I can hear you to Connecticut. >> Yes. >> Are we going to be reviewing the >> Which document would you like to open first? >> Um, >> sent a few different ones. >> We can u perhaps review the the site plan. We just had a a nice meeting with
the abuing neighbors reviewing the updates to our site plan. So happy to start there. >> Hold on. So, will the neighbors say that? >> I think so. Come Okay. So, this um plan here shows our
updated site plan. Um we did take into consideration some feedback that we received from the previous uh public hearing um on circulation uh on the site, access to the site um and egress off the site. Um, so what we've done
here is we originally had the entrance to the property down on this curb cut here, which is currently existing uh down near Humphrey Street. Uh, cars would enter the property there and circle up to in front of what's going to
be the main entrance of the of the hotel and they would continue on past the annex and then exit down here uh and facing onto Blaney Street. Um and there was some, you know, real concern about those neighbors right on Blaney Street that there would be a lot of headlight uh light pollution into their properties
and completely understandable and we've, you know, taken that into consideration. Um so what we've done and it actually this improves the flow of the circulation um on the site anyway, but so what we've done is we've essentially flipped uh the flow of traffic. So, if
you're coming, say from Humphrey Street, you'll drive up Readington >> and you'll turn into the property up by what is now the the playground playground um and the ball field >> and you'll continue on. You'll enter the property there. either go and park your
car in the parking lot here or continue on down past the annex uh and drop, you know, park here in these spots right in front of the property, the hotel entrance or drop off your guests and continue on and exit uh out where that
current curb kit uh exists. Um so that it's actually more logical from a drop off standpoint. You're dropping people off on the passenger side of the car rather than the pulling up on the driver's side. Um so that was the main kind of change to the site plan. Other
than that we've um started to identify you know where we'll have um you know pole lighting where there'll be ballard lighting um kind of to um you know circulate around the property. Um and we have our landscaping schedule which was
shared with with the select board. Um and we had again a good meeting I think with the neighbors talking about how and I mean this we're very open to how this all gets screened. uh you know whether it's a combination of arborvite soft plantings or a fence or some combination
uh of both it doesn't it doesn't impact the sense of arrival to the hotel that much and so we're um you know happy to work with with the neighbors and the town on making sure we can kind of come to an agreement on something that works for works for everybody. >> Was the um event well attended tonight?
Was there a decent Yeah. >> number of people there? Yeah. >> Great. Great. Okay. >> Um, so that is really the, you know, kind of the update to the site plan. Um, happy to continue on to the next.
>> While you're on the site plan, um, are there going to be, are the requisite number of spaces going to be EV ready? >> Sorry. >> Are there going to be EV ready spaces? Are you going to run the electrical when you do the site work? >> Yep. We have we've called them out here. Dual head EV charging stations there.
there. Um >> I think we have a note. Well, yeah, we do have we're accounting for them. >> Okay. And then, um >> how is parking being managed for the excess parking that I'm sure you're anticipating on site? >> I think what we're anticipating is we'll
we'll have valet parking. Okay. >> Uh so if there is off-site parking, you know, at a a to be determined lot nearby, that'll be handled by valet. >> Understood. >> And we have a similar arrangement uh with our hotel in West Hartford. And it's we lease that property from the town of West Harford, Connecticut. So,
it's a very similar situation uh to what we have here, this being a lease. >> Um and we use municipal lots kind of in downtown >> um for our overflow. >> Understood. Do you expect to charge for parking? >> No. >> Oh. >> And do you anticipate um how do you
anticipate employee parking to work? Will there be a shuttle system? Perhaps >> they there'll be some combination of um you know if we can accommodate some of them on site. They're not obviously all on site at once. >> Um you know there is actually there's a
bus stop nearby very close to the train station an easy walk. So in terms of access from the property if you're not using a car if you're using public transportation um it's pretty >> accessible. >> Accessible. Yeah. >> Okay. Great. there. This is me being
just a little bit over analyzing on the part, but when you the cut >> coming in from the street >> Yep. >> into that side run, is that >> I have no sense of scale in terms of how big the car is relative to that. Is that a tough
>> enough to make a U-turn? >> No, just a tough turn. >> Oh. >> Just coming in. I don't know if that's that's not necessarily in our purview to >> you know, it is our discuss from Readington into the parking lot. H >> I mean, is it a tighter turn perhaps?
But it's Do you see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. Wayne's question is just the width of that curb cut and access from the parking lot. I I'm sure you'll either address that with us or through planning, but the requisite width it'll have to be for a for a car to be made. So, that'll be Yeah, that's not a concern that I have. It'll be addressed
through the planning site plan process. Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Dixon, I have a question on the lighting. Um, when you talk about pole lighting, >> do you mean >> how I want to know how that's going to
affect the neighborhood and what the I just want to make sure that when people are sitting in their living rooms or their wherever they're sitting in their house that the lighting isn't going into their houses is will that be addressed with your ballard lighting or your pole lighting? >> Yeah, we talked about that at length
tonight. Okay. Um, you know, the Ballards, they'll all be, you know, dark sky compliant, so there'll be no, you know, uplighting. >> Um, >> actually, this is, if you don't mind a divergence, this is our our new hotel in Mystic, Connecticut. You can see >> there's some Ballards. It's kind of not
a great photo, but like there's a Ballard right there. >> Um, and that's actually, >> you know, probably more Well, anyway, very low lighting. No significant uplighting on the exterior of the building at all. Um, good. These are pretty small windows by comparison to
the windows at Hadley. Um, but we're not anticipating any above and beyond what is necessary in the parking lot. >> Okay, great. >> Were there other concerns brought up tonight? U Marcy, anything else that the public brought up that we need to be
cognizant of other than lighting >> and parking? >> And parking. I think the majority of the concerns were about landscaping and I think traffic impacts. Um there was some discussions about um retaining walls and
um just the need for for current maintenance of the of the parcel >> and the playground. Right. >> That's correct. Yes, we talked about the playground. Um the relocation of it and um I'm just looking at my notes. Sorry,
Lost a question while you're looking. >> No, I think that was about it. >> Sorry. What >> is there um any consideration for the rainwater runoff into because you're adding more >> into where the ball field was,
>> right? You're adding concrete adding tarmac. >> Is there any concern for that loss of absorption area? >> I mean that'll be all accounted for in our in our landscape grading plan. >> You'll have a engineered storm water plan as storm water >> management plan submission. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> So you'll see there'll be retention basins or something that they'll have on the site. >> Bas Yeah. That'll be addressed in a further submission. >> One thing that I am noticing, I know when you came before us, well, excuse me, came before the planning board about a year and a half with your initial
concept drawings. Um I think since then, I know you've added it looks like um canopy awnings to the entrance, which I think are really nice. Well done. Um, one of the other things I know you've talked about screening at I guess your neighborhood meeting and I think just my
personal preference is um, arborites to use greenery um, rather than vinyl or whatever fencing that you could use for screening. Just the added benefit of trees to accomplish the goal is helpful. Yeah. >> For whatever it's worth. >> No, there's obviously not a lot of, you know, landscaping opportunity on this
site as is. So yeah, when you can have the chance, take it. >> So has has any of the Marsy, this is probably a question for you. Um, has any of the the substantial list of trees that have been provided on this list, has that
been reviewed or tossed by >> that's tree committee? That was just kind of a sampling of a theoretical plan of what we would, you know, >> propose. It's just >> we will have a full landscape plan that will be reviewed by the planning board as part of the site plan review.
>> Then what about the the very end there um on the on my right where the you know the that row of parking and then what's going to happen landscaping wise to shield the neighbors that are to the far right
>> on Stone Court. Yeah. Um, so there's going to this is going to be the ball field kind of slopes up towards Stone Court. >> So that's going to have to be leveled >> brought down. >> So there will be a retaining wall that will naturally screen the parking lot
from those abuing homes. Now on we talked about this at length is what additional screening goes in there if needed. if you know you said if there is a a fence or arbits have looking down on the water.
>> Um so in that case maybe they wouldn't want screening. >> Okay. That's >> so they'll be involved. They'll they'll have opportunity to >> Yeah. Okay. >> What what is the expected elevation step that or >> I I can't >> regrading >> I can't recall. It's a few feet, but I think it would cover, you know,
headlights in a car, for example. But yeah, and I think I just for the board, at least for Wayne and I, I asked Marzy this question by email, and I'm sure you may have communicated this to Dixon as well. We have our jurisdiction through
the land development agreement as the property owners. The planning board is a site plan, special permit granting authority under our zoning bylaws. So, they are going to have a very similar conversation to what we're going to have in requirements that they may have the applicant do in terms of screening and they're going to go through all of the
elevation plans, the the engineering plans, all of that kind of runs parallel to us as the property owners as part of our LDA. So, um, a lot of the intensive application, uh, questions we might have in terms of elevation changes, all that, the applicant will have to provide to
the planning department when they go to pull their building permit and get their site plan permit from the planning board. Just from a process perspective, when does that understand? >> Right. What's the timing on that line on the whole process? >> February of next year is when they have to have all of their permits pulled and
approved by relevant boards. >> Okay. So, what is it? What is it the process though? like how many meetings cuz we're in July now. >> So there's only a few months before we we get to like what what does that look like
>> the schedule the timeline? >> Mhm. Do you have that or I don't know you'll have >> I would defer to Dixon because in order to appear in front of the um the planning board we will need to have um all the elevations planned the
landscaping planned um the crosssections sort of like the traffic pattern. So there's a there is a um there are sort of forms and a process that a um an applicant for a commercial redevelopment of the site will have to submit um to the planning board in order to be heard.
And obviously they review there's a um you know we have bylaws that um they will have to meet all the standards for the application process. So it really depends it really rely we rely on the applicant to submit the application. Our agenda for the planning board meetings
or the the deadlines are listed in terms of the calendar when they meet when the um application has to be submitted because the petition will have to be advertised in the local newspapers. We have to advert we have to notify the neighbors. uh we have been taking um you know remaining a list of interested
parties. So we want to make sure that we provide the proper notification to all of the um abutters and the neighbors. >> And a site plan permit can only be by statute. Site plans have to be approved within a certain number of
calendar days from the day it's applied for. So I don't know when you're planning on applying. That's obviously up to your discretion. But um you know we have our LDA which all the permits have to be in hand by February 2027. >> Yep. >> Crazy 2027. Um
>> but also one that that from the day they apply for their site plan permit you know the planning board the clock ticks. So they have to have >> the approvals by whatever the statute is. I think it's >> 90 days or 180 days or something. >> Okay. So what's the next step for us? What happens next? Can anyone tell me that?
>> Marcy. Well, I I would think that the next step that um the um select board would refer this project to, you know, to um the planning board to review the the process and start the application and work with the development team.
>> Okay. So, do you need a vote for that? >> No, you you don't need a formal vote because obviously it's they will have to submit a formal but just you know as a I would think procedurally I would imagine that you would want to hear back from the planning board. you would want to review their decision and their
recommendations for the project. >> So, ask a quick question. Has anything changed since you last came for either us or any of the other boards? And we've talked about a lot of the external stuff that internal have you there's been changes. >> Huh? >> There's changes. >> Yeah. I can you explain what those if
there's any significant changes between the amount of rooms or the room sizes or what you're offering and so on? >> Sure. I mean, should we go to the >> Can I give a suggestion for how we might approach the conversation? we go through page by page because I did notice there I I think it's helpful for your for you to get our feedback page by page.
>> Um from a process perspective I would imagine Dixon can take that feedback. They can make whatever >> considerations they want with that. >> Um and then I think for us at the end for us to have a process conversation with that feedback where do we go next?
What's the next step? And then how do we get from here to February 2027 when all permits need to be in hand? >> Yep. That's what I would encourage us to. >> Okay. So, let's do that. Let's start with page one. >> Is it this one? Dixon. >> Dixon. What document are you looking for?
>> Uh, it's for exactly what it was called. >> Um, >> A200 was >> that's the reflected ceiling plan. >> Yeah, that's that's that one's a bit harder to read. Um, just
>> tell us before 2008. For the purposes of this board, I would think just the layouts of all the floor plans kind of going to be what >> we don't need to go through the the ceiling plans. Yeah, ceiling plans, that sort of stuff for our colleagues on the other boards. >> Which is the document that you're
looking so I can find it. Item >> first floor or >> it should say >> A2018 >> contact documents or >> what's the page number >> in the bottom right? >> Is it A10? >> There's a two
>> A100. So it's after the after the landscaping >> inventory. >> I don't think I have. >> Oh, right. Okay. >> I think I got it. >> So the 100 series. >> Yep. Yes. One. Here we go. >> Great. Okay.
>> So overall basement floor plan. >> Just give me one more minute. Sorry about this. So, okay. Make the glasses. Are there any specific questions in terms of the changes that we'd like to review? I mean, we could go through the whole plans again, but if there's
something we'd like to talk about specifically, I'm happy to to focus on on that. >> Call out what changes you made on each of the >> Is this the right document or >> Yeah, that looks good. >> I just want to make sure I'm in the right spot. >> Answer. >> No, please do.
>> So, in terms of revision control, right, you're are you is this is the first time then that this this these drawings have been created? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So it's not like you've revised something I saw was Rev One. So >> they've been evolving, but this is the
most recent and updated plans that we have. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So I think before the last time you came before the select board, what has changed from then to now on the basement floor plan? >> On the basement floor plan, um we've put the restaurant into which is going to be
very kind of cool. Um, there's going to be kind of a a two-level restaurant in what's now the mechanical room because there's a pretty significant subb in the current mechanical room. So, there'll be a two-level restaurant um with a
perimeter kind of terrace that wraps around >> the perimeter of the main mechanical room with an opening to below, which is this area in blue. And then down below here, this will be the seating area um in the bar that will be in the floor of
the subb. So, it'll be kind of a speak easy. And there's actually a few rooms in the subb of the basement um that actually lend themselves kind of very well to uh private dining rooms. So for you know a dinner of say 14 20 people
something like this that room is already there um with dramatic >> 20 foot ceilings. So that'll be kind of a very kind unique uh you know restaurant setting um >> fun >> and that'll yeah so that's kind of the main change. Other than that this is all
that's all the kitchen fundamentally that hasn't changed. That's just um we've gone a bit more uh granular on the layout of the kitchen. Uh then otherwise it's predominantly back of house um break rooms and these this is all kind
of that subgrade. So these windows will be frosted. So you're not going to be looking into the back of house but they'll be screened and frosted. >> So there will be light coming in but you won't see into it. Um that's the biggest change. >> So you said there the subb has the
private dining space and the regular basement has the speak easy setting. the floor of the mechanical room of the the subb is where there's a bar. >> Yeah, >> the bar is right here. >> Got it. >> Yep. And that um >> Oh, I see. >> Right there. And then this room >> is Yeah.
>> private dining. >> Or it could be just set up for regular alikart dining, but it could be. >> But it's got it. >> It's there. >> Yeah. >> Is this all existing space? This converted? >> Yeah. >> So, you're not creating any new space? Okay. >> No, it's a very, very big room.
>> Yeah, it's huge. >> It's a what? It's a big room. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I see. Okay. What was this previous? This was the gym. >> Mechanical. >> Mechanical room. >> It's all the original mechanical room. Okay. >> That's where the steam boilers are. >> Yeah. >> Um should we go up to the
>> Y first floor? >> First floor. >> Uh it's still the basement. One more. >> Um no real. So this is the basement floor of the annex. >> Mhm. We have added this was we've added a
room here. This was going to be one very large room. Uh we've broken it up into two. >> Mhm. >> Uh and that stack follows on the floors going up, I believe. So I think that's the only change there. >> Um
no, just kind of more detail on the bathrooms here. This is the uh the ADA compliant room in the NX. Does the elevator service to the basement? >> It has to. Yeah, >> it has to. Okay. Yeah. >> Is there more than one elevator? >> Just one elevator. We we were originally
going to have two. Um but this elevator can work double duty as a service elevator and a passenger elevator. And because this building benefits from having very large, gracious staircases that currently are boarded up, uh once those are opened up with new windows,
they'll be, you know, pretty beautiful staircases. So, we anticipate a lot of people using them. Maybe not going up to their room, but um going down, >> it's been used that way for hundred years. So, >> yeah, that's true. >> Um but yeah, the service elevator, we've, you know, looked at that
extensively with our operations team. Uh and they feel comfortable with one elevator. So, the new construction is actually much smaller. So, the only new construction on this entire uh project more or less is this connecting tower between the main building and the NX. Yeah.
>> So, that's now shrunk. >> Okay. We move on to the first floor. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Keep going down. >> Uh, no real changes here at all. Um, this is still what we're anticipating to
be the main entryway um into the hotel up these staircases. Uh, what is now the principal's office um and the nurse's office. That'll become the hotel lobby. uh check-in and lobby. Uh and then the gymnasium uh as it was previously
has always been planned is that'll be the ballroom kind of for bigger events, weddings, parties, um corporate functions, whatever it is. That'll all be in the in the current gymnasium. >> Was there some point that there was no not going to be any entertainment space at some point or is there always was
that always in the plan? Ever since I've seen there's always the ball. >> Yeah. And this once again those windows are kind of fogged up as well. Once we put those new windows, it'll be a lot of natural light and it'll be overlooking Lindscott Park which will be quite nice. Very grand.
>> How is that ADA accessible if you have to go up the stairs? >> The ADA access point is through the new construction over here. So that elevator tower that'll have uh the ADA access point. >> Okay. So, were there any real changes to this? >> No.
>> Okay. Got it. >> Okay. On to the second floor. >> So, just quick question. So, the guest rooms, you've got kind of It's kind of interesting. You've got them kind of
littered in different groups. >> Yes. So, each of these quadrants in the main building at least, you know, those are all one classroom >> currently. Okay. >> And so each of those classrooms is give or take 800ish ft. >> Um so we're going to put a demising wall
down the middle. Each of these now hotel rooms will have two very big windows. >> So from a layout standpoint, it's it works well. Um that leaves, you know, >> so the average the average size would be about 400. >> I was going to say range of room sizes that you have throughout the whole property. >> All of these rooms are kind of 325
350ish because there's the corridor. So that takes up square footage. >> It's a generous size hotel room. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, it's a nice size. Um, and we're retaining these coat closets, uh, or the the cubby closets. Um, those will be the bathrooms on these the hotel
rooms that are kind of closer to the stairwell. >> Mhm. >> Um, so those will be retained kind of unique. >> Great. So you're you're not retaining any plumbing. I mean, it was all >> No. from start. >> Yeah. God knows we have second floor.
>> Second floor. >> Yeah. >> Did you change >> one more down? >> Um the gym that's changed locations. >> Yeah. The So the gym uh keep going. Keep going down. >> Oh, their gym. >> So the gym is >> the new gym. The hotel gym.
>> So this is the um the mezzanine seating level. >> Yeah. >> That's currently there. And we had originally looked at putting a hotel room there and putting a wall that's, you know, open down to the ballroom. So now we'll have, you know, putting a wall there. We'll have some sort of decoration to, you know, make it
aesthetically pleasing. Um, but this actually works because it's poured concrete steps and it's very hard to make that work as a hotel room. >> Uh, not to mention this window over here is actually quite small. So, for if this was to be a hotel suite, for an example,
because that's about 700 square feet, it'd be kind of odd because there's this very small window in a very big room. >> Um, so we decided to we need to put the gym somewhere and we put it here. It's on the second floor, so it's kind of out of the main flow of the hotel lobby, right? >> Um, obviously for hotel guests only for
the gym. >> Um, and there's enough square footage where we'll we'll kind of flatten off part of it. So, there'll be two levels. um you know where exactly we put you know the treadmills and the weights to be determined but it'll be kind of two levels here.
>> Does it have a spa? Did I remember it being a spa or is it just a gym? >> Just a gym. We we we couldn't really fit the spa in. We would like to We have spas other properties. >> It got pretty tight. Yeah. >> Um >> Yeah. >> So those two columns to the right area
is that open space. What is that? >> This Yes. So that is kind of open to below as they say in plan. So that's the the ballroom. >> Oh, you're looking down. >> Yeah, but you won't be able to see it. That'll be >> So they can have the cathedral ceiling. >> Yeah, it's like 25 foot ceilings in the
ballroom >> in the gymnasium. And we're retaining the um the stage. Uh so that will be if there's you know a band playing there, they need a stage. >> So that won't change. Um >> great. As I said in the annex, again,
the annex is just all rooms. There's no real change there, >> right? >> Okay. >> You have different size rooms obviously. >> Yeah, there's um a number of different size rooms. Um the annex, some of the rooms in the annex are a bit tighter. Um but then again, we have some larger
rooms uh in the main building. >> Some of them designed to be suites where they can Yeah. >> Yeah. Next page, we'll see. I think if y terrace, >> keep going down. Uh, one more. This is just the more detailed
>> more annex is all suites. Keep going. >> Yeah. So, here now we're on the top floor of the main building and these three rooms here >> have kind of a natural terraces over a roof that exists there.
>> Um, so those will have, you know, very nice terraces overlooking Lindscott Park, which will be quite nice. Um, this room is a suite here that also connects to the adjoining room. So, if you're a family traveling, you can have, you know, kids in one room. Um, and we have a few other connecting rooms throughout
the rest of the property as well to accommodate families. Um, and that's yeah, some of these rooms here, which Yeah. So, now remember, so I think these are the bathrooms. Um, we've were able to put one bedroom in there.
>> Yep. I think this was a break room here. So, those are kind of funky smaller rooms that will, you know, not be as big, but they'll, you know, have a certain element of charm. And even in um >> but not as big as what 200 >> I don't there's nothing smaller than 250, I don't think. >> Okay. So, that's still a
>> good size. Good size. >> And if you're a sing, you know, single traveler, >> right? >> It's fine. >> Um, so that's that. If you want to keep going, we can show you, I think, the updated roof plan, which is just a more detailed It's just a more detailed drawing. Keep going.
That's the roof of the annex. One more. Yeah, here we go. The last >> So, this is the roof uh of the main building, the original Hadley building. Uh this stair tower um in the stairwell
that extends up from the basement. So that's how you will that's how we'll service the rooftop. Uh but the rooftop is fundamentally just going to be wide open except for the extension of this stair tower which we need for two means of eress from the roof. Um we've put our bathrooms here. We actually originally
had them over here. Um but there was actually a good recommendation from one of the previous public hearings to have instead of having three masses >> to try and consolidate. So that was actually, you know, a good recommendation and we uh integrated it into this latest plan. So this will be
the stair tower, bathrooms, and then uh the bar. But otherwise, this is all open. There's no um no pergola system, no roof. It's not a fourseason space at all. >> Right. >> My colleagues on the planning board who provided that recommendation will be very happy that you guys followed
through on it. >> Yeah. And it makes it actually makes the plumbing easier because we don't have to run it from over there. It's all consolidated. >> Consolidate the stacks. >> Yeah. >> And so how is the roof open closed? Like what what is the It's not a closed in.
Is it a closed- in roof? >> No, this is completely open. I mean, if we have some no umbrellas or, you know, some shading, uh, but it won't be nothing fixed. >> It's really seasonal with furniture. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Is there there isn't conference space or
any type of breakout rooms or anything like that? Uh if you go if you want to go back down to the um the ballroom because the ballroom actually does have that there's currently an air wall there currently underneath the mezzanine seating. >> So we do anticipate to have um a new air
wall. So the ballroom will break up into kind of a 7030 split. >> Y >> so if you're having a a party a smaller party and you don't want to feel like you're swimming in the big ballroom it'll divide up. >> What's the largest party that you could accommodate? >> I think the seating plan
>> 144 is it? Is it 144? Yeah. Um, >> yeah. Seating for 144. >> Call it 150 if you have, you know, the the bridal party on the stage. >> That's perfect. That's great. >> And for a 58 key hotel roughly, um, that's a fine size. I mean, if you have
a massive ballroom and only 50 rooms, that's kind of odd. So, >> right. >> Proportionally, it's okay. >> Scale. >> Yeah. >> Going going back up to the roof top. So, is that all removable material that you would take seasonally out or is removable just to be able to service the roof underneath?
>> When you say what do you mean for the removal? >> Well, it's talking about removable deck tiles. Uh >> oh. So, that's just um so the iPade decking. >> Yeah. >> If there's like a puncture in the membrane below, you need to be able to Yeah, >> that was my point. Yeah. Okay. But otherwise, it would stay >> Yeah, that's all going to stay
>> throughout. >> Open to the weather. >> Yep. Have you thought about how you're going to screen the um utilities, rooftop utilities? >> Yeah, whether it's kind of a a hedged or a fence um >> something like that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> And what's the plan going to be for containing sound off of that deck? >> Well, we'll comply with the town noise ordinance. I don't think there's you can't have amplified music outside or on the roof. So, whatever the town ordinance calls for, we'll comply with.
Has there been any thought to um community space or space that the community would be, you know, not earmarked for or space that they could use? Because I know that did come up at one point. >> Yeah. Um what we had talked about is making, you know, a portion of the again
the meeting space which is not that big, but maybe it's that smaller portion of the ballroom if that's available, you know, given plenty of notice. Sure. Um for Yep. >> whatever something. Yeah. >> Do we have any other questions? Wayne,
>> this is a lot to absorb. It's great. >> Looks beautiful though. >> Now, we'll probably move on to process conversation, but when do you think you will be ready to file for um your site plan with the our colleagues on the planning board? >> Yeah, I'll have to we're we've gotten
our you know, this plan here. We're now kind of going into phase one of veing the plan. Yeah. >> Um so I'll >> I I'm not sure yet. Okay. But we're we're working on it. >> Is there is there a document here that um just kind of gives the overview of how
many rooms? >> It's 57 >> right now. It's 57. >> 58, right? Did you say 58, Keith? >> I forget. >> I thought it was 57 somewhere. Yeah. >> I'm sorry. I apologize. Okay. >> Yeah, >> it is in here. >> I think it's 57.
>> The most allowed in the zone is 60. So, it won't be more than 60. And max occupancy with all rooms included for guests is how many >> if it's two rooms per person times yeah 58 12 something like that. >> I didn't know three or you have
>> I don't honestly know the maximum occupancy >> two people per room. >> Is that your max >> two or three maybe? >> Uh I mean if you're traveling with a kid and we have a trundle bed um you know something that we bring up. So I can't imagine being >> but not like there's like at other hotel rooms you have two queens and you'll
have four people. Oh, if it's two people per queen. Yeah, we do have some double queen rooms. >> Yeah, you could have a max occupancy of four. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. >> Okay. That's what I was getting. >> Yeah. >> So, the the the max total I mean your projected total might be two per room, but your max
total would be >> I looked there were there were a handful of double >> double queens, but it wasn't 5050. There were more king. >> I think we have eight. I think I think it's eight double queens. >> So, >> okay. So potentially >> I think Hermes says more than that
>> 104 13200 something like that. Okay. >> Right. >> Okay. Anybody have any other questions? Mr. M. >> I would just from my experience on the planning board, I would give yourself enough runway to uh make sure you're
you're get your approval um in time for final uh feedback from this board per the LDA timeline. >> Y this looks really nice. Thank you. Great. >> Yeah, we're very excited for it. So, >> and I would like to also underline we talk to Dixon weekly. Yes.
>> Unless there's a reason to push. >> Um, so we will also be in touch to make sure that any support he needs from the town side he's getting, but it's a standing meeting that Marsy, myself, >> uh, and Dixon have as well. >> Great. Well, thank you again for coming
in. La last question for you. Do you guys operate your own restaurants on site? I feel like >> we do. You say that. Okay. Very nice. >> Yeah, we right now we do we have leased them out in the past and we might lease this one out to be frank. >> Um but at this current time we do operate all our restaurants. >> Nice.
>> Looks great. >> How big will the restaurant be in terms of capacity? >> I think we have roughly a 100 seats in the current plan. Maybe a little less. Maybe 80 something. It depends on kind of how you lay out some of the like Yeah.
>> And you still plan on having the outdoor dining? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Yeah. And I shared some photos of our um our existing properties in the restaurants to give, you know, won't be exactly that, but the type of aesthetic that we try and create at our in our restaurants in the outdoor areas. >> Looks great.
>> So, you'll bring you'll then transport >> the food from the main kitchen up to the top. >> So, for the for the the rooftop, >> we're not anticipating to have a full Yeah, that'll be um if we have to serve some snacks, we will. Uh but it's not going to be a full restaurant on the
rooftop by any means. That'll be just for >> It's on the main line. >> Cocktails. >> Cocktails. Yeah. Okay. >> Sunset. >> Great. >> Well, thank you again. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Awesome. >> Looks great. >> So, Marzy, could you just walk us
through kind of between now and opening because I know um that's kind of in the contract generally for the LEA, excuse me. Could you just walk us through kind of process and timeline for us to have a better understanding? >> Absolutely. It'll be my pleasure. Um so
as as um you had mentioned and alluded to earlier, the developer has until May 27th to complete all of their permitting, meaning going through site plan review um um sort of review by the historical commission if there's any
demolition or any external work on the project that they would also review it um prior to issuing of the the building permit. Um they will also have to secure all of their financing and in addition to securing all of the permits and that is all due by February of 2027.
>> Um after that um the town will also execute or the select will execute the lease agreement um with the uh with the developer during that time as well. And then construction will uh probably take about
um 24 months or so. So that would bring us into um February of 2029. And if everything goes well, the um hotel should be open by November of 2029. Or at least that's what we had
established or identified in the um LDA as the timeline. >> Can you send us the timeline? >> Absolutely. >> Dixon, does that timeline still match with what you're hearing from your your GC's? >> Y. >> Cool. >> Great. Thank you. That's awesome.
>> Do you do you need me? >> No. >> Thanks for coming. >> Thank you so much. >> Okay, we're now moving on to discussion and possible vote on fiscal year end transfers. Patrick Luddy, you are up. >> How are you?
>> I'm good, thank you. Um, so tonight I have for you year end transfers for fiscal year 2026. As you know, we just ended our fiscal year on June 30th. Uh annually, the select board and the finance committee have an opportunity to
review departmental budgets that have run over budget and those that have run under. And I will make a recommendation to you to transfer between those departments to balance our budget out as we close the year. So, um I do have a list of
transfers that was provided to you. Um, the total transfers are about $285,000. For comparison, uh, last year it was, excuse me, $663,000
and the year prior to that it was $479,000. So, this is lower than what we've seen >> the last couple years. Um, it's reflective of, you know, the budgeting that we've been doing and we haven't had any, you know, crazy
variances this year. I think the largest transfer in is uh to the fire department related to overtime costs. So, I'll I'll highlight that. Uh, we had some increased uh labor for DPW related to the trash strike and
um fire department expenses. We purchased the ladder truck and the bid came slightly over. So, we used operating for that and there was some extraordinary street lighting maintenance costs in DPW as well. Um, and in terms of budget
savings, the largest area we had had seen some savings in was employee benefits. So, you'll see I'm suggesting a $97,000 transfer out of there. And um >> is that health insurance? >> Yep. >> Health insurance. Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. And the the other largest transfer
here is out of the solid waste expenses to cover the solid waste, you know, the DBW labor. So, we had some savings from uh the contract JRM contract that was not completely fulfilled during the strike. >> Could I ask the increased labor for DPW
recycling pickup from the strike? Is that not something we were able wasn't there negotiation happening whether or not they would cover Republic was going to cover some of our extra costs during that time or no? Am I misremembering? >> Prior to my arriving, they credited some
of like I think the first 3 months of the fiscal year, >> right, >> our costs were significantly lowered. >> Right. Right. >> And so I believe that is where these savings would have come from. >> We're using those savings to pay for the DPW labor, but it's two different budget lines. >> Oh, those are two different lines.
>> Yep. Exactly. >> Okay. So, just so we summarize that, we did have a savings and that savings is going to be covering this line. Yeah. >> Correct. Yeah. There was more than $41,000 in savings. >> It was more than that. That's what's required to cover that. >> What happens to the to that other this well
>> the overage or extra savings? >> Yeah, that will free cash or >> that will close to the the enterprise fund. So it'll be retained earnings. We can use it towards you know future years for the contract or whatnot. >> Okay. >> So I have a couple questions. How is it possible that we uh we ran over on
lifeguards? We we budget this. So we didn't this is different though this year, right? It's coming from a different spot than it has previously. >> Yes. So, the >> transfer in for the lifeguards came to my attention that not all of the
lifeguard expense that was incurred in July and August. So, last summer. >> Mhm. >> Not all of that was captured in this line. Some of it was charged incorrectly to recre revolving. >> So, this accounts for that. >> Wait, explain that again.
Some of the the salary expense for lifeguards at the beginning of fiscal 26 was incorrectly charged to wreck revolving. Y >> So now we're at year end. >> Okay. >> Ticking and tying caught that. So we need $15 more,000 in there to cover it.
>> So that has to go back into the revolving account. >> Yes. >> Okay. But still, we had a line item for lifeguards. Did we just went completely over that line item? Did we underbudget for the line item or was it just that we took it from
the wrong spot? >> I think we took it from the wrong spot. >> I think both. We took it from the wrong spot and I think going forward the budget needs to be higher than what it was set at historically for that. Yes. >> Okay. And can you also look into legally
can we be using the revolving account for some of these activities >> like lifeguards or community bigger community events? Yeah, I've had a couple conversations with Charlotte about that already and we're going to continue to talk about it and bring Okay, >> more information to you before we do the
next budget. >> So, my next question is Harbor Master salaries. >> Yep. >> How do we go how do we go over that? I mean, >> so um >> there's a few officers that will backfill um
>> at an overtime rate in the harbor master >> area. >> Okay. And so from July and August, so beginning of fiscal >> 26, thank you. In three years now, um there there was an overage.
>> So police officers have to have to cover that on overtime. Is that what you're saying? >> Yeah, there's some overtime attributable to the harbor master operations. Yes. >> And is that essentially If the harbor master's on PTO or something like that
and we need another officer to cover the the duties. >> Yeah, I think it's that or if there's like a specific, you know, event or high need, we might have someone else come in to help. >> And don't we have nonp police officers who are also uh on the harbor master staff?
>> I believe there's one one other individual. >> And are we using that individual? >> Would you know? >> I do not know that answer for right now. I can talk to >> Waters. I think we're using one. >> Maybe we should look into that.
>> Well, I think the question was, you know, the question is this was last year. Are we are we doing the same thing this year? I think to your point, that's something now at the beginning of the summer. >> Yeah. I mean, we're we're seven days into the new fiscal year. So, I'm happy
to talk to Lieutenant Waters and make sure that we are being mindful of the budget in addition to staffing. Hey, it's a conversation I'm happy to engage in. >> So, what this looks like, it looks like there's no police overtime.
>> You don't have to transfer for any police overtime. >> We do not. This >> That is amazing, isn't it? >> Yep. >> Mhm. Very good. And the retention bonuses for the senior center, can I assume that that are
that's part of an older contract? >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Right. So there were a number that came at the end of the fiscal year that have not been up for renewal. We I have not reviewed every contract to see which ones it remains in. But the new contract as an example for senior center does not
include >> Yep. >> any retention bonus. >> I think we only had one contract that had a retention bonus. I don't remember seeing two. >> There were two at the senior center. Yes. >> Okay. >> And now there are none. >> Mhm. >> There used to be many. Yeah. And what
about the budgeting error from se cemetery and DPW? What is that a just a transposing a number? A >> really small amount. Um right it's it's I would say it's rounded because that's so many employees >> on one budget line. Yeah. >> Um >> try to avoid that but
>> no of course >> that's there. and the on the fire truck who who ended up authorizing that we go over on the bid on the fire truck is that so it was a long conversation >> between myself and the chief
>> where are you >> and Nick um the town meeting authorized I believe it was 1.6 6 million for the truck and it came in about $20,000 over that and the environment with apparatus right now is that the price
escalation is >> yeah I see it >> is brutal and the lead times are also quite long. So the the vendor that was offer offering this price that was advantageous also offered a much shorter
lead time because they release models >> right >> that are you know at a certain specification and there's less customization but they have more availability of equipment um and at a at a better price typically. So, um, collectively that decision was made to
do that and the direction to the chief was, you know, try and hold the hold the budget and make up that difference by the end of the year and we did we didn't get there. So, um, that's that's why we do need the transfer in the at the end of the day for this. But >> does that answer the question about
capital versus operating? Is is this an expense to run the ladder or is the truck >> that's for equipment for the for the capital expense? >> Yeah, it's capital expense. So why is that being transferred is an operating expense? These are all
operational expenses, right? >> So why is it maybe I missed that in the explanation. Why is a capital expense being paid for through changes in the budget of an operating expense? What am I missing? Um
so it's departmental budget for the fire department. We authorize capital separately but it's not uncommon and it is allowable under this you know statutes of the commonwealth to use departmental appropriation to purchase equipment.
That can be done. Um obviously we want every bid to come in at the you know the value of the capital project but >> um on a $1.6 $6 million purchase. It was >> y, >> you know, a nominal difference at the end of the day and the risk to the town knowing we
had to buy another ladder. Um, the cost we would be on the hook for would be much greater. >> So, so that what you're saying is that's a normal thing that if you go out and you bid something that was granted by the town for a capital project and you're slightly over, do we have a policy in terms of how much we're
allowed to use, a percentage of some sort? I don't believe that there is a policy in >> there's no policy. >> There is no policy. >> So this was an opportunity to get a truck or it would be years and more expensive. >> Right. >> I'm not debating that the decision was right or wrong. I'm just saying if it
was $150,000 would be a different discussion. >> Yeah. And I I had spoken to Katie about this when we were moving forward. I may have mentioned it in one of these meetings as well. The original hope was that we were going to be able to save money like in the budget for repairs and
maintenance as an example and in reality our equipment is old and we didn't we were not able to save it in that way. >> Um so you know the idea was they make a certain number of trucks each year. There's a certain number that are not made to specification as Patrick
suggested. We have been in regular contact with the salesperson saying, "We're willing to take one of these less customized trucks because we want one as quickly as possible. We don't want to be at the back of a two and a half to three year line." And this was an opportunity that it was either move quickly or
>> Right. I I totally agree with the supposition. That's not even that's really it's more of a kind of a a fiscal operations question of if we have a capital project and unfortunately from the time that we allotted the money
to when it comes back and it's more what is the traditional way that we've handled it is it like this is there a certain amount that it has to go it has to be within that we can take it out of operational management >> there's no policy
>> I can actually answer that there is No, there's no policy. But historically, what we've done is we've either used um money out of capital that has not been used and it's a a likeminded, but it hasn't really happened too much, but um we've also taken it right out of
operations. So, you know, in in this situation, being able to get this truck in as quickly as possible. Yeah. I'm not >> My only question is, is this truck What color is this truck? That's >> your only question. >> Well, no. And what color is this truck? And do we pay extra money to having a an
a special color? >> I I I don't we paid extra money for a special color, but I'm not going to be the one to reveal the color of the new truck. I feel like >> I I think you just did. Okay, that's a I just want to know if it cost us more money, that's all. >> Okay. >> And then my last thing is so the fire
department, even though the fire department was at full staff, they still ran over overtime at one. >> The fire department has not been at full staff. They've had >> they're not at full staff. >> No, >> for the for FY26, they were not at full staff for the full year to be able to avoid
>> um the need to fill straight time with non-straight salary. >> But are they at full staff now? >> Is everyone out of >> Yeah. >> I think everyone has gone through academy and is on if they're a new firefighter, but with the recent retirement, I think we're probably down one,
>> right? >> So there were no savings from being understaffed. To the contrary, >> it's just the opposite. >> It's the opposite because instead of being able to pay someone their salary to cover their shifts, >> we're paying someone else more to cover the same number of shifts, >> right?
>> What was their overtime last year during the shuffle? Just out of curiosity, >> I have that. Hold on. >> So, but this 105 is the net difference between the two. >> That's the increase above what was budgeted, right? >> Yeah, I got it. >> Yeah. So fiscal year 25
fire department overtime was $885,000. >> Dear God. >> This year it was $795,000. >> Wow. >> That's just overtime. >> Just overtime >> fired.
>> Wow. There's still 105. >> Okay. And I I think it would be useful for us to come back probably in the August meeting just to set the timing, one of the August meetings to talk about overtime is built into our contracts with with both police and fire. It's what we do to manage it above and beyond
that >> or to stay below sort of the contracted >> liability that is most important. And so I think it would be useful for us to come in um with the chief or without just to have the discussion to say, you
know, within the contract, this is the liability that's created with the agreement that we've come to and what we're trying to do monthtomonth uh and throughout the year to make sure that we do everything we can to manage it. >> It's a great idea. Okay. Do we have any
any other questions for Patrick in the year end transfers? Anybody? Seeing as there are none, Patrick, thank you very much. So, we need a vote on this, don't we? I >> was going to ask. >> So, I'll make a motion to vote on the to approve the year end.
>> Approve the year end transfers. >> Move. >> Second. Did you make the motion? You seconded. >> Yep. >> All in favor? >> I I Great. Okay. Next we are on to FY27 water and sewer rates. Patrick, you are
still up, I think. All right. So, I have a few slides for you on the water and sewer rates for FY27. >> Can you just tell us the timing on this? I mean, did we do this last year at this time or why? >> It was about this time last year.
>> This time? >> Yep. It was in July. Um, in the past we've tried to do it, you know, a little bit sooner after the budget is passed, you know, maybe May or June. Um, that way people know what rates are before they begin.
>> When does it get reflected in the bills? >> That it'll be reflected on the August 15th bill. >> Okay. >> Okay. And before you even go further into that, as we talk about >> rate setting, it is I understand it is
uh within the purview of the select board. So >> where in the past can maybe you explain for the new guys is we had a water and sewer rates committee >> to which was then merged into water and
sewer infrastructure advisory committee. Is is that still supposed to be a role of that committee? >> They make a recommendation. Is that I I think I remember that from last year. >> They don't but they don't necessarily set the rate,
>> right? But is there a recommendation? Has it been is it is it typically go through them in the past, >> right? >> I mean, I know you weren't here last year to to speak to it because Nick wasn't here. >> Thank you. Thank you. Um so last year for example we did I did meet with the
water and sewer infrastructure advisory committee or at least a subgroup of them. We had conversations about uh the rates and got a little bit of feedback. I don't think they came to the select board with a particular rate recommendation. >> They didn't
>> they okay? Yeah I don't think they did. Um, and I don't know that in the formation of their their committee that they're charged with doing particularly that. Um, in the past there was a water and sewer rate committee that was specifically charged with looking at rates when we were looking at going from
a single rate to a tiered rate. That was a lot of fun analysis we all did together. So, um, that's the kind of role they played last year. I have not had a formal conversation with them about this this year. I anticipate we're
going to talk about this again later in the month. So, between then and now, I'm happy to have that conversation with them and get any feedback they might have for the board and we can all share it. Um, >> great. >> Yep. And just for those of you that were not on the board last year, this is
something we typically do annually. So, we'll only look at this once a year, barring anything crazy. and we'll do it definitely before August 15th when the bills go out, but you know, we can do it as soon as the budget is passed.
Uh, next slide, Shannon. Thank you. Um, I put a little slide together to recap our results from FY26 as they stand today. Obviously, I'm still closing the books. Uh the retained earnings I'm projecting we're going to
have certified this year for the sewer fund are 29% of budget and for the water fund will be 33% of budget. Um as a point of reference our financial policies say we must have a minimum of 20% of our budget in retained earnings.
So this is definitely within our policy. Um in the past you know as of our last certification both funds were below policy. So >> why such why do you think such a dramatic increase? >> Any idea? >> So on the bottom of the slide you go
>> there are um little data points on consumption versus consumption estimates which is one factor. So um we saw definitely a jump in irrigation consumption
um overall. you know, that tends to eb and flow depending on if we have a wet year or a dry year, people sprinkle more or whatever. >> Um, and then domestic usage, there was an increase um, as well. There was a significant increase in tier three uh,
which >> can you just explain a little bit about tier three or the tiers for? >> Yeah. So, the tiers are based on um, consumption levels. So, if you were a homeowner and you um were in using a certain amount of water, I think it's
2500 cubic feet or less in a billing cycle, that would all fall within tier one. >> But as soon as you hit, you know, 2500, 100 cubic feet, that >> tier two, >> that one gets build at a tier two rate. >> Okay. And then so on so forth. Gotcha.
>> So, it's kind of incremental rate increase. >> Wow. Um, >> and irrigation is specifically on a separate meter. >> Those are separately metered sprinkler systems. If someone is sprinkling their lawn without a separate meter, that would be included in the domestic
figures, >> domestic, >> which means they're paying for the sewer cost as well. >> Correct. >> Yes. Correct. >> And what is the what about the money Oh, actually the money for I I um >> RDD >> IDE that is in a separate account,
right? Are you talking about INI fees? >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's not counted in this at all. That's a separate maintained separately and it's for, you know, specific uses. >> Before you leave, can you give us the do the balance on that fund? >> I don't have that on hand tonight, but I can email it.
>> Email it to us. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. Next slide. This slide recaps the budget growth that we just passed at town meeting. So sewer fund is going up 7.3% that includes
indirect costs and water fund is going up 6%. Um other spending plans we have for both enterprise funds um there's 5.7 million of you know capital projects in the 5-year plan for
sewer and 6.25 25 for water and both are going to require a significant amount of new debt service to pay for um those costs as well as projects that have already been approved that we haven't borrowed for yet. Um so there's some
significant needs coming in the next few years that we're all well, you know, well aware of um that are going to require revenues to support. >> Is that already listed on the CIC report? >> Yes, >> it is. Okay. Yep. >> So, it's not new. >> No. >> At all.
>> This doesn't include anything that's not on the report that you know might be out there, but as we update the report each year, this this will change too. >> And the report includes like a review of the force main. It's a force main study, which would be a significant investment that is on the horizon.
>> Yep. Yep. Okay. Next slide. But we backed out. We we backed out how much we we took out a capital project, didn't we? >> In the sewer fund,
>> a phase of it. Was there something? >> Yeah, there was. >> Right. Right. >> We were going to authorize We were authorizing borrowing to be able to do phase 2C SRF loan application, >> right, >> next spring, >> right? But is that number calculated in
here? >> That was not in the final approved capital plan. So, >> right. So, I'm just wondering, >> it wasn't in the final plan, but I'm just wondering, >> it's on it was on the CIC's 5-year plan, so I included it in here for reference, >> and we didn't approve it at town meeting
knowing we would we may, you know, approve it later. So, I just left it counted in. >> So, it's still in here, >> correct? >> Okay. Y Thank you. Um on this slide are just some assumptions that were used to you know when we were looking at the rates uh
consistent with last year we used a 95% of prior year actual for domestic consumption and 85% of prior year actual for irrigation consumption. Um we assumed a flat number of accounts. Typically we'll see you know nominal growth in number of accounts as new
units come online or whatever. Um, and I did change the assumption from last year on the collections rate. We used a 90% last year. We were trending down a little bit. So, used an 85% collections rate for for the water and sewer.
>> Okay. >> We talked about collections rate >> as defined as the difference between what's reported leaving the town as a whole versus what's metered and us collecting on >> it. Not to do with consumption at all. That's to do with collecting money. So >> who pays their bills?
>> That's what's build out for the year versus >> 85% of it of the bills you send out are collected. >> I didn't realize it was that there was that much of a difference. >> Is that peer community? It where do we fall? Is that normal that rate?
>> I would say so for FY26 we did 86% collections of what was built in FY26. Doesn't mean we're not going to collect it all. It's all secured by property taxes at the end of the day. >> Um, but that to me indicates maybe there's an uptick in delinquency. So people are saying what, you know, all my
bills are going up, >> right? >> What am I going to you know, pay a little late first? It might be the water bill versus something else, which is, you know, a logical >> Yeah. >> thing for most people. So, >> um, that's that's where that comes from. So, we're going to monitor it. I think
we had a really big rate increase last year, too. So yeah, >> that could be putting pressure there as well. >> Okay. But it's something you monitor and kind of uh >> Yeah, we look at it every year. Um that's, you know, lower than I'd like it to be. >> Could you send the information out in
terms of what, you know, how delinquent the accounts are? So if we have, you know, 400 accounts that are delinquent, how many of those are 30 days, how many of those are, you know, 60, 90, 180 days a year, whatever. >> That's like a census, like the aging. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I think what I would be curious of on that line is I mean do we have accounts that are chronically significantly delinquent and if they are is that something that one of the offices at town hall can be
proactive about if that's a lot of ifs but >> also is there is there any type of um state aid federal I don't know I mean there's aid for electric and gas Right.
>> Is there any aid for water? Does that exist? >> That's a great question. I don't know that answer. Don't know. >> There's nothing I'm familiar with. And the initial difference that comes to mind is it has to be a significant very
significant issue for a town to cut off water service. >> Right. Exactly. >> Whereas >> the other utilities are >> pretty quick, >> primarily investorowned utilities, >> right? that are more willing to take that action, but it's certainly something we can
explore. >> And we had also discussed in the past setting up a like a voluntary contribution that a rateayer could make, >> you know, like you write a separate check when you pay your bill and it would go into a fund that people could apply for aid locally.
>> Great idea. Um, and that was something that I think we determined town meeting could could set up. >> I'd also be curious whether or not the delinquencies are on owner occupied or non. I don't know if you can tell the difference. I'm
>> no make don't make any assumptions >> whether or not it's owner occupied or non-owner occupied because it's a rental property >> depending upon the renter. >> Yeah. if they have the obligation to pay the water bill versus the owner >> who probably pays the water bill. I don't know what the arrangements are.
>> I'm not sure we'd know that answer. >> I don't know. I don't know. I'm just asking. >> Yeah, I don't know that I would have the date owner occupied. >> I always lose my water bill at my rental property and I paid it yesterday. Sorry I'm late. >> So that's Thank you. So that's a valid
concern. Do all properties in town, regardless of uh owned by, you know, an individual for-profit company, not for-p profofit institution, get build water uh the same water and through rate. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Yes. >> I think that's why the tiers exist though. >> The tiers are just based on usage, right? >> It's just based on usage. >> Yeah. But a commercial property would generally use more and thus would pay a higher rate. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. >> That was a good primer on how how water and tour rates work. Thank you. >> Okay. Good. Um we can go to the next slide. Um these are potential rate recommendations
along with a projection of what that might mean for retained earnings um down the road. So a 4% increase to sewer rates and a 3% increase to water rates um would accomplish you know we would
have 32% of our budget in retained earnings at the end of the fiscal year projected and we would have 48% retained earnings in water by the end of the fiscal year and those are fun funds that would help support the capital costs that we are all you know fairly familiar
with I think at this point that are lurking out there for all these funds. Um, and this is in line with what we talked about last year, >> right, >> when we wanted we were doing a large considering a large rate increase that ultimately passed and we
>> the board was looking at the future and seeing >> how are we going to have stability going >> forward the projected plan. >> Yeah. So the these are in line with with that. Can you um remind us or for the
newer members what that was? What exactly? Is there a slide for that? Like what our plan was last year that we went over to kind of address this type of rec? >> Yeah. So what I do have is I have a slide showing the retained earnings over the last 10 years and that kind of
paints the picture of you know why we needed such a large rate increase last year and how we're trying to avoid um you know large swings in the rate going forward. So I think that the the premise for from last year was trying to avoid some
mistakes we made in the past, right? To better plan, >> you know, for three years out. That's the discussion we had last year >> that kind of that Patrick's referencing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But even with last year, didn't we we
contemplated a really large increase last year, >> right? But we >> the paper we went as moderate as we could and we actually didn't we wasn't it last year that we decided to >> not stick to the 20% retained and we
dropped that a little bit. >> Yes. So with the assumptions that we were using >> right >> feeding into the projection that we were using to set the rate >> we said okay this might not get us to 20% of ret budget and retained earnings for each fund. And ultimately the board
decided that they were comfortable with that and we went with a rate that wasn't you know >> highest increase we showed right. Yeah. >> But and so on this so on an increase on an increased sewer consumption base of 4%.
You're saying that the the retain earnings will go up to 32.2 whereas our policy is 20%. >> Yeah the policy is minimum 20%. Why aren't we just >> And you said we're 17 from last. Oh, we're 29 already, right?
>> Mhm. >> What I'm So, what I'm saying is why aren't we just staying at our 20% retained earnings? >> Because if we do that, then all of the capital improvements that are coming online that are going to require more
>> more annual cash to service the debt on, >> okay, >> we'll be sticking ourselves with large rate increases, you know, next year or the year after. So you're projecting what you're projecting out that we're going to be taking money back for. >> Right. Okay. >> Right. >> But we don't use the retained We don't use retained earnings to pay the bill.
Retained earnings only go >> Isn't it just retained earnings to keep on the side in the event we need it? >> Well, if if you're over your threshold a little bit, you can put that towards your budget and it helps you stabilize your rate. So if you have the debt service in the
budget this year, you know, your budget's going up 10%, but you have enough retained earnings, you can excuse me, you can keep it keep the rate increase to, you know, under five. That that's what you want, >> right? I think I think what just throws me is calling it retained earnings only
because when I look at retained earnings, it's just to specifically have, you know, the retained earnings, the three months of a cushion or whatever the percentage is of a cushion. And this is a lot more than the cushion instead if it was just >> more operations.
>> Nick did pull up this slide here. So this is a 10-year history on retained earnings >> in each fund. And you can see, you know, going back to 2017, we were in a pretty healthy place in both the sewer and the water fund. The sewer is in green and
the water is in blue. And then um starting in 2023 and leading into 2025, we had a decrease in the retained earnings to the point that the sewer fund had had no retained earnings. Um and water had very little
>> and and that decrease was because we were doing more ID work. >> No, >> because I thought that was all paid out of different monies. I would say it comes down to we were not increasing rates in pace with right >> what >> what needed to be done for the
>> well we were also doing we were we were doing more work right >> we were doing work whereas in the past nothing was being done >> but when you say doing work was that doing work for general services or for for things related to >> for infrastructure in infrastructure
work right >> we were doing the work but not offsetting it with the increase >> it's not only IDE is that the It is. Yeah. That's what I'm trying to distinguish between what this money is used for versus >> I think I think historically there had been a lack of investment in the
maintenance of the infrastructure. >> Yes. >> And that bill came due sort of all at once. >> Yeah. Right. >> And that was not planned for in the way Patrick's recommending that we do here or that we're both recommending that we do here. >> Okay. And so we were put in a situation where we were chasing it rather than
planning for it and finding the right spot. To Mary Ellen's point, I think is why we wanted to present this information, give you a few a couple weeks to think about it, also answer any further questions, >> right? >> Because there, you know, there might be a number that's somewhere in the middle that makes the most sense from you all
as a rate setting body, >> right? >> But we wanted to certainly make sure we articulated so that everyone understood where we're coming from with the anticipation of these capital expenses. we know exist, >> right? >> Um, and making sure that we try to avoid that one year that's a 17% jump,
>> right? >> By trying to manage a a reasonable, >> right, >> you know, forecastable increase for both taxpayers and the town. So I'm wondering if some of this also is operational cost increase both from wind water and sewer whether or not their per million gallons
rate has gone up or whether or not we're sending more to them in total millions of gallons per day from one year to the next. Did we change at some point along this way where we went from I don't know
2 million gallons a day to 2.5 million gallons a day? So I think if I understand the question correctly, there's two different parts to that. If we're sending 25 million, we're also billing for 25 million. >> So >> not necessarily. That's the thing.
>> So we're not billing for consumption. Is that >> No, no. Let me let me be clear. There's a because we send sometimes a lot of rainwater to water and sewer. We're getting charged for that. I'm just trying to back out
whether or not we're seeing variability of that. If you think about it, if it's just regular consumption, not consumption, usage of the sewer system by residents and businesses, it should be pretty flat, right? If we're seeing spikes relative to rainfall, I
like to know above that baseline what it is and what we're paying for. Are we paying for sending rainwater to Lind Water and Sewer? Everybody's sending rain, water, lin water, and sewer. Otherwise, you wouldn't have had a cso release >> because the rain infiltration into the system, but that's all getting sent for
processing. So, we're all paying for it one way or the other. >> Yeah. >> Us, Lynn, Sus, uh, the Han, we're all in that same system. I'm just curious how much of this it reinforces going back and looking at the infrastructure if you can determine
what the cost is that the residents are paying for that infiltration issue. >> Yeah, I I think the data point that might be useful for you which I can get you I can definitely get you the historical the assessment annual assessment that we paid to MWR and
Limwater Sewer. I think we've shared that in the past. Um, and there's flow metrics that exist. I'm sure I can get them from Gino. Okay. >> Um, for both >> and that that would be useful, I think,
to your point. >> It'd be helpful. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Great. So, um, this is everything I have prepared for tonight. >> So, you're only presenting one
recommendation. That is the initial recommendation. >> What happens three recommendations? >> I didn't want to enamor you with three. So, I I have one for you tonight. I think it's a solid one, but I'm open to feedback so that I can come back with
alternates if if there's any initial reactions from the board. >> So, you're you're recommending 4% and a 3%. 4% in sewer, 3% in water. >> Yes. And that's in line with what we expected. Can you remind me of what the increase was last year that we put in?
>> Um, combined it was I want to say 18%. >> Yeah. So, this is significantly less. >> Yes. >> And what is your logic in 43 versus two flat across both? >> Like walk me through how you arrived at that recommendation. >> Uh 43 was what what we forecasted last
year. So it's in line with, you know, what our assumptions are and our plan is in terms of maintaining retained earnings leading into paying for the capital improvements. If you do a 22 >> and something goes sideways with consumption this year, then your retained earnings will not be
>> maybe in as good a spot. >> Okay. >> Going into those spending years, >> how does it affect how does it affect the uh the bill? Um I have that. Uh if you passed of course >> compared to last year.
>> So how much is you know the average person? >> It would be $52 a year. >> It'll go up $52 a year. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's the four and three assumption >> with four and three. Yep. So my big concern is one of the biggest
I don't want to say complaint but I one of the biggest comments that I have received um is the the increase in in this in the water and the sewer bill and how hard it's been on a number of
residents. So I would like to see I would like to see a number lower than the 4%. Yeah. I'd like to see is the possibility of what is it actually going to cost with capital with your capital expenses and what are the operational costs and
having you know a 20% retained earnings or a 15% retained earnings what are those actual costs just to give us an idea >> I'd also like to see information on terms of um the water
that we have not accounted for in meter rates. >> Are you talking about the half a million? >> Yeah. L lost either lost revenue either from inaccurate meter readings or just lost water. We had a number of very very
large um water main breaks this last couple of months. I I'm just curious how much how much has that cost the town in terms of lost water. >> Okay. >> Just overall. Okay. Yeah, I think I can get historical maybe.
>> And when we put when we put new meters in, does that come off of this? That that's a CI. No, that's >> that's a capital expense. >> It's a capital expense capital expense. It gets paid in here. It gets paid out of here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> It's not Okay. >> It's a capital expense. So, >> but it gets paid out of this out of this out of these retained earnings. >> It gets paid out of this bill. Okay. >> That's like $3 million, I think. >> Over two years, I think. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> That's for purchase and installation. >> Mhm. And that's every how many? Seven years. >> I think we're beyond 10 right now. But >> goes fast. I mean, >> the further we go, the more inaccurate it can become.
>> That's part of the motivation for making sure that we stay on top of it. >> What's our current rate of loss? Is it over 20%? I would >> number I heard floating around. I just wanted to know. >> Yeah, I've heard that number too. >> So, I would need to check with Gino on
what >> what the actual >> for unaccounted water. Yeah, >> which I can do. That is something that um I think I've stated this is something I'd like to make a priority on for us to be able to attack in many different ways as
possible using uh water and sewer advisory committee as well as as there's a lot of brain power there that >> I think that's a good idea >> that that wants to to help with that. >> So I can get that data point. I will say for purposes of setting this rate the
assessment is locked in for MWA for example. So if we have unaccounted for water, we're trying to like chase that down and close the gap. That might help us in a future year, but this year we we have to set a rate that, you know, will pay for this year's budget. >> Yeah,
>> understand. >> Patrick, if you wouldn't mind for the next meeting. Yeah. >> Um just including a slide of what we talked about last year and the thought process so we can see what the plan was that we looked at >> so that we can understand why your recommendation matches exactly what
>> we kind of planned for last year. and not recreate the wheel, but really understand where that's coming from. >> Sure. >> Yeah. If you could show us what your forecast for operations is, including your debt, your debt line item, and
what the amount would be for retained earnings at 15, 18, and 20%. >> Okay. Do you have any other questions or any comments for Patrick? on this piece. >> Good conversation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Patrick. Lots of work.
Appreciate you. >> Okay, we are moving on on to discussion and possible vote on resident parking on Engle's Terrace. >> So, this was a topic that came in, I believe, to Mary Ellen and maybe others um related to misuse of the resident
parking spots. Uh what we identified after the original email is that there are signs that need to be replaced >> in addition to uh a similar question that was raised earlier around enforcement and making sure that uh only folks that are
legally allowed to park there are parking there and and what we're doing to to enforce that. So, we included this on the agenda with the expectation that there were further comments that you wanted to add in addition to replacing signage, making sure that that's readable, updated, legible. Um, and
certainly I think this it feeds into the earlier brief discussion about resident parking at large, but also in the immediate area. So, I'll turn it over to you, Mariel. >> So, um, I brought this up because I've received a number of calls about the problems, uh, in this in this area, and
I I'll read one letter. Okay, you can put this into the record. Uh, this is a letter from a resident, Nicole McGee. Um, she's she can't be here tonight because she's working. And so she says, "Hello, I'm a resident of Engles Terrace and requesting resident only signs
because at times the street is becoming congested with beachgoers vehicles. There also has been an uptake in overnight parking with vehicles lining the street on both sides. The street is very tight dead. It's deadend street and hoping resident only parking signs would
help ensure the limited parking be primary for the residents on Engle's tariffs. The signs would also help ensure the street stays safe with a reasonable amount of vehicles parked on it, allowing emergency personnel vehicles to easily access it even as an
emergency. Thank you, Nicole McGee, resident 23 Engles Terrace. Um, I brought this up at our uh, select board meeting on that Saturday and Katie asked me if I would just run up there and double check what it actually looks
like. So, at um, 2:00 the Saturday that we had our meeting, I did go up to Engles Terrace and it was lined on both sides with cars, lined all the way up and all the way down. And there are signs on almost every poll saying no
parking from when is our no parking is it April to October >> and yet there was parking up and down and there were no parking stickers on any of the vehicles. So um Ms. McGee is not the only person who called with a
complaint. There's also a couple other neighbors that called but I don't think they can make it tonight. So the request is going to be to have it adjusted to resident parking. >> So is that a vote that you all would like to take tonight or do you want us to do a similar outreach or make it part of
the Cedar the >> Well, my first question is um why aren't the police ticketing those cars? Have we had that conversation yet? >> I have not. >> Have we asked them that, you know, we went up at 2:00 on a Saturday and there were all these people parked on both
sides? um have we even looked at that part of it yet at all or >> so the questions around enforcement I think will be best served not only by my conversation but by them hearing directly from you and residents to be completely honest >> um on any enforcement we can ask them to
sort of be cognizant but we can't direct someone to write a ticket >> right of course >> um so you know having that public hearing that can talk about this in addition to the hill I think would be very useful having both captain cable and uh Chief Kati here will also be useful in that regard.
>> Well, I think it's like a problem that that seems to be rearing its head in multiple streets, multiple areas, and it's got a consistent theme where, >> you know, we've got people with un, you know, stickered cars that it's there's
just really no um followup or or no monitoring of it. Right. So, it seems to be a bigger problem, not just specifically one street or Terrace or Cedar Hill. It's seems to be a repeating theme. So, I would like to get um the chief here to understand what exactly
his plan is um for this type of situation, right? It's a bigger parking conversation. It's not just a one-off, right, with one specific street. That's my first thought. >> The the other piece of feedback around resident parking broadly is questions about if I am a
resident and I don't live on Pine, >> Mhm. But I have a resident sticker and I want to go to the train station or I don't live on Engles and I want to go to the beach, you know, >> which I think is part of the larger discussion of how we want to go about enforcement in the future because it is >> opaque.
>> It is right now agree good way to describe it. >> People are confused. They don't know if they have this sticker, do I can I park here? Does this sticker cover me if I'm here? >> It's not an easy to understand >> like recreation sticker. >> Like what does that cover? if I live here and I park here, is that okay or is
that not okay? >> Or, you know, are we sure all of these people are just people going to the beach and they're parking up there or is it people that don't understand that they can't park ever? What? So, I think there's a >> it's far as parking. I mean, we have
serious we have serious issues just in the in the fisherman's parking lot. >> Yeah. >> You know, I mean, on Saturday afternoon at 2:27. >> Yeah. >> Not Saturday. Maybe it was Sunday afternoon. Sunday afternoon 2:27. There
were 11 cars, 11 cars parked there with no stickers whatsoever. And the lot was packed. So if a Swamp Scout resident with a recreational parking sticker wanted to go over there and park, they couldn't,
>> right? >> And there are no tickets on the cars. That's what's confusing. Saturday I went there and I saw >> So I'm parked in a handicap spot. Didn't have a placard. >> Um >> Oh Jesus. >> They weren't parked in one handicap spot. They were parked right on the line
in two handicap spots. >> Oh, you're talking about the BMW. >> Yes, I am. >> Yes, I saw the same car. >> Yeah. >> So it's scrolling scrolling out from this a little bit. Um that's a nerdy term to use. I'm sorry. Um, I think we have to have that broader conversation
on enforcement regardless of Engles Terrace, Cedar Hill, the the fisherman's parking lot. >> The report that I think Marzy's office got a grant to do in 2017 for metropolitan area planning council studied parking on Humphrey Street, >> whether we should angle the spots,
whether we should uh do parking meter, a whole bunch of different solutions. and it's been a couple months since I've read it, but the biggest takeaway from it wasn't necessarily the quantity of spots in the area is low. Said we should improve them if we can, but the number
one inhibitor was cars aren't circulating. So, cars are parking legally. And that to me roots in the management of parking, whether that is meters or enforcement, >> right, or both, >> something or a combination thereof. That is the number one easiest thing to look
at versus trying to buy parking spots or whatever. We may have to have another conversation about the future. >> You say circulating meaning they're not coming in. >> They're not turning over. >> They're not turning a 2-hour limit >> spending four hours in or >> Well, we we you sent us a report and
said between June 1 and June 25th, June 20th, there were 25 tickets written on Humphrey Street. Mhm. >> So it's that's an average of what 1.1% of tickets that are being written on
Humphrey Street. >> A little bit over one ticket a day. >> One ticket a day. >> One ticket a day being written on Humphrey Street. And I I just think that I think from a town administrator's seat, I think a a conversation might be
>> I think it's been made clear not on Engles specifically, but across broadly that parking enforcement is a significant concern that I have >> reflecting the conversations that you all have had as a board and that the public comment that's been made here. I
don't think that's lost on the chief, on Captain Cable, or on any of the the officers. >> Okay. >> Um, >> as I said, I it is it is not legal to direct someone, >> okay, >> to write a ticket. It is certainly important for us to highlight it as a
priority and enforcement for all the reasons that you're outlining today. >> Yeah. >> Right. I think it's more of um not necessarily directing someone to write a ticket. It's really just understanding what that department head or you know the chief's plan is >> right
>> to make his department more efficient in terms of >> um what their you know job responsibilities are regarding enforcement right so we're not going to say chief you got to write 25 tickets a month >> oh yeah >> right no
>> but we have documented right incences of people that are parking illegally without having tickets. So, I want to understand from him what his plan is to address that. >> Yep. >> Right. Efficiently or effectively because it doesn't seem to be either of those things right now. And like and for
Cedar Terrace, I mean, people are coming home, residents are coming home that are having trouble getting into their driveways. They're having trouble just having relatives come by. You know, >> I think Ced Cedar Terrace also >> I'm sorry, not Cedar Terrace. I'm talking about Engles. Engles. Sorry
about that. The one thing I will say on Engles is, and I only know this because the last project that we approved when I was on the planning board was on Engles terrace, the lot lines there are very strange in that it's very hard to tell what is the public street >> versus the public sidewalk versus what
you would consider someone's front lawn, but it's actually looks identical to the street. The lot lines there are a little >> confusing. I haven't >> been there to look to see if that intersects with the parking issue at all. Um, but it's helpful to just have that context in the back of your head. Is parking allowed anywhere on Eagle
Stairs? >> I I don't know. I think it's >> No. Well, not during Not during um April to October. >> Okay. None. >> It says no parking on almost every orange sign. Orange sign. No parking. >> Is that correct? I mean, it should
>> I believe that it is supposed to be resident or permit, >> right? >> Except, you know, because especially during those periods because that's when the beach users would be most likely to be in the neighborhood. That's part of replacing the signage with something that's legible and enforceable. >> So that's that's a question I think I I
would love to see the chief here at the next meeting to really talk about this stuff. >> Ted, to your point where you're saying it is confusing, I don't know if it makes sense and this is part of the conversation we can have at next meeting is do you delineate exactly where the car is supposed to be? >> Well, it's one of those streets from a
planning perspective where you look at a lot of the the street has undergone some level of redevelopment in the last 15 years. So there's a lot of what used to be probably a single family cottage that's now a two or three family condo building >> multi-unit >> where they did creative parking
engineering to oh I can fit a part a car there I can fit another one around the corner here. So >> there's creative parking solutions that in some point in the past a engineer did to redevelop those parcels. My point of bringing it up is I could see a world where, oh, that's actually parked on
their private property, but it's hard to tell it's private property because it's snug right up to the sidewalk and it looks the exact same as the sidewalk. So, >> yeah, >> it's hard to delineate that. But that's, you know, like I said, I haven't looked at it with a parking lens in mind. I only looked at it from a planning perspective, you know, eight months ago
now. Um, >> I think would you ask the chief? I'd like to see him here. Yes, I me or this whole board would like to see him at this next meeting so we can understand what his plan is or his designate if there is one that is now dealing with parking or traffic or whatever the
>> I'd like to see the chief that too. >> Yeah, >> I think it also is helpful. I mean this is the second street well the third parking incident in two months, right? or area of concern, right, that we're talking about >> summer time. >> And and not to not to interrupt you and
not to um not to knock the chief, but this is the third. So, we've got Cedar Hill, we've got this, and I didn't we have another I feel like was it Pitman or there was another street where >> earlier in my time like a few months back Pine, there were complex on Pine where there were
>> commercial. The difficulty is we're having the conversation without somebody from the police department present to help us, right? Understand? So, >> well, and part of my bringing that up is we're going to continue to see this happen as our town becomes more of a
>> destination for people in the area. They want to go to our wonderful, successful restaurants. Those are all great things, but we have a fixed number of parking spots that we have to make work for all of these thriving businesses that help contribute. >> We're going to see that in the next two uh points coming up. we are um but I
think we just need to also have that context of >> sure >> parking management will be helpful and it will get us >> you know further than we are today but it may not deliver the perfect solution the silver bullet that we're looking for without some other solution not suggesting what that solution might be
>> so just to distinguish I feel like you're more focused on Humphrey >> the whole area because I think they intersect with each other with all of the streets adjacent and off of Humphrey >> and my just to underline line. My concern is just making things resident
only off of Humphrey is people that get resident stickers on other streets that are not adjacent and not in the area. And that to me when I was saying opaque, that is something I pushed the police on quite a bit to like >> Yeah. >> How do you decide is it directed
enforcement on Pine? And that's the example that it came the context it came up in for me. >> If it is it a resident calling and saying there's a commercial vehicle or someone's been parked there all day. I think I saw them walk to the train. How do you determine if they have a resident sticker >> that's active? Like why are they being
ticketed? It's like, well, how far are they from? >> Can you do that? I didn't even know you could do that. Can you do that? >> I don't know. >> I can get a resident sticker and park in any resident spot in town. >> That's a great question, right? >> Yeah, >> pretty much. >> I've been missing out all these years. >> Yeah. So, this is the type of >> So, there's a resident, then there's recreation,
>> right? But I'm just saying on the resident side, I think it that is a larger conversation to just say, >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Whether we go in the direction of communities that have zones and you sort of >> cut the map >> and post it everywhere and spend time on education before enforcement really
starts says some stickers are red, some are blue, some are orange, some are green. You know, >> I that might be a question that we need to address going forward so that it's not a resident that gets a resident sticker and then parks on a resident only street that's >> near Humphrey or near the beach or
whatever the case may be. Yeah, I think that all is part of a comprehensive parking conversation that we'll have to >> be informed from the chief on and ourselves on where we're going to take this direction in the next few months. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, do we want to what do we want
to do here? >> I think we want to we want to I don't think we want to vote on this tonight. Only let's just stay in line with what we've been doing and put it on to the next meeting. this way in case somebody that lives in that area wants to come in and say something, they have the opportunity. >> And we'll plan to flyer Angel's
terrorists. >> Good. And sorry that we did the 300 ft from Al's house last time. >> We'll do all of Engles terrorists. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I would wonder also if there's um it seems like the hashing at the bottom of Cedar Hill was helpful sounds like from
some of the residents. Is there >> additional strategies beyond just replacing the signs that might be helpful in that area similar to hashing or something? I don't know if that's an issue that would fix it there, but >> I think we just have to ask the neighbors. >> Yeah, maybe that's what it is. But looking at that, >> I can I'll follow up on I'll follow up
with the people that had called >> complimentary solutions. >> Okay, so now we're moving on to discussion and possible vote on recycling and solid waste service contract and fees. >> Okay, let me just share a couple slides.
So, there are a few different topics um that I just wanted to give an update. Anticipated delivery, the requesting for additional carts. These are things we talked about at the last meeting. Um contract discussion and potentially vote to authorize and then the extra cart fee discussion and a vote uh potentially
from you all as well. So, I will go through these. Feel free to stop me at any qu at any point with questions. Um, this is based on the conversations we've had both with the vendor for the barrels and with Republic. We are on track for the week of the 20th for the delivery of the barrels. It will include a flyer
with uh additional information um and and that's to each service address in town which would put us on track for the week of July 27th. Tomorrow is our check-in with um Republic and Dan Higgins. So, I will be happy to share with you all directly, but also post any
update if there's any change in that schedule based on tomorrow's check-in. Um, the other thing I just wanted to highlight here, uh, after talking to Wayne and the chair of the solid waste advisory committee, we're looking at, um, that second week in August for the first curbside pickup of the old
barrels. And then we'll also have um, during business hours um, in August uh, the opportunity for folks to drop off their old recycling barrels. the the options will be reuse, you know, dispose of through us um or, you know, figure
out some other way out. We want to give it the the easiest way to do it obviously would be curbside for most folks, but we want to give the opportunity if they miss that for whatever reason, want to continue to use it or decide after the fact um they can recycle by dropping off at the DPW as well. Our first hope would sincerely be
reuse, maybe use for yard waste or something like that. >> So now this is the pickup of the small bin, the smaller. This is the pickup of any privately owned uh >> your two 95 gallons. >> Okay. >> 65. >> No. >> No. She has 95. I showed you.
>> You have 95s. >> I have huge ones. >> I think yours might be 65. >> Okay. >> I don't know. >> By the way, your two your two your two blue ones. >> Can you measure them when you get home? Just so we can >> Your two >> I would have no idea. I could probably fit in one. I don't >> Your two blue ones can go out. >> So yeah, we'll pick them up and that
we'll work with Republic. they will come through and pick them up at the curb site. Uh but as I said, our real hope is to limit that to just when it is necessary and folks find a reason and a way to reuse them at home so that we're not >> okay. >> Uh just sort of replacing one barrel with another and throwing something else into the into the stream.
>> Okay. >> Um next slide. So for additional carts, we have you can request there there are a limited number of carts for smaller recycling which will be the 65gallon that we've ordered. >> Yep. Uh again, I just want to highlight
what we're thinking right now is the real goal is for those with mobility issues and seniors, people that might have a hard time sort of maneuvering and handling the larger one. Um if we run out of inventory, we are certainly open to uh ordering more, but we'd like to really get a temperature
for what those requests look like. That's now live on the town website at swampscottmma.gov/trash. Great. >> Uh that will be a request that you that is being made uh as I have at the bottom of the second um bullet there. There's going to be a discussion tonight about tonight about the fee for that second
barrel. >> Um for the smaller recycling barrel, that's something that we will do, but it's a one-time you get the smaller recycling and if we go to every other week recycling later in the year or at some point in the future, you're still with your 65gallon. We're not providing
for free a 95 gallon. you can return it and and purchase another one, but um we're we're not going to be able to do sort of the Goldilocks idea of, you know, now that we're going to every other week, anyone who had previously requested 65 now wants something larger. It's >> nope, >> it's not something we'll be able to
>> to accommodate, unfortunately. Okay. >> Um, >> so that's the smaller recycling and then there's the opportunity based on the discussion we had and Wayne will talk about this a little bit more. Um, to request an additional for a fee, an annual fee, request an additional trash
barrel if you're a user of the bags on a regular basis, you know, week to week to week so that uh it's something that will help us maintain the service levels that we want. And then also I I think this is a very much an edge case outside of maybe the commercial district on um Humphrey. There will be an opportunity
for a fee to have a second 95gallon trash barrel as well. >> Okay. >> Um but again we are fairly confident that >> you mean recycling barrel. >> Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Oh thank you very much. >> Um >> your phone was going to be ringing
tomorrow. >> Yeah. And we again we anticipate you know just in sort of looking at the usage now and and Wayne's done a lot of work researching usage across the state uh and nationally we think 95 gallons is
going to be sufficient for for many cases maybe not all but for many cases. So it's it's an option that will be out there but again there'll be limited inventory. If we get to the point that we need to order more we'll just let folks know that there's a a brief delay while we get more coming in. >> Okay. I think the biggest uh feedback
we'd had was, "Geez, what do I do if I have a ton of cardboard?" >> Yeah. >> Right. And and will that fill up my my 96 gallon barrel? >> Yeah. >> Um we will be planning at the end of the month um at least on a kind of a trial
basis to pilot this out to let people bring cardboard. Only Swamps got residents >> to metal day or whatever. >> For metal and styrofoam day. Yeah. um to bring to bring their cardboard if they have collected you know they've got they had a new water heater or a new something that you know that they can't
fit in their barrel. But I would just say you know encourage neighbors to rely on other neighbors when there's probably going to be sufficient room in their neighbors recycling barrel to for the few times a year where you have excess cardboard to utilize that
>> as as as you can. >> Okay. And that drop off at DPW will be again the same days that we're already staffing it. So that it's sort of just an additional option for the community as opposed to additional option and additional cost. Okay. >> So it's it's the way we're going to try
to see how it works to to start out. >> Okay. >> So just a brief contract update. Um I've shared with Wayne uh because he has been involved both in his prior role and now obviously um the appendices that are specific to pricing for um general
government operations, the municipal side and the school side. Uh in addition to the pricing for you know the pricing table that was submitted as part of the RFP process. Um it it tracks with what was proposed. Uh the level of detail
that they provided for the uh general government operations and and school operations is actually really useful because we did not have it broken out like that in their response to the original RFP. It was simply, you know, here's the total annually for school pickups as on the schedule that you gave
us and here's the total for the general government operations pickups. what they gave us now is, you know, sort of a line item of if they're if you're picking up a town hall four days a week, it cost you this. If you go down to two days a week, then you can, you know, do the math to figure out how much you can save. Um, and that was something in
working with Dan when I described that we were really interested in that information. He said, if you can send the word document from the RFP, we will just give it to you and that way you can really plan for any changes that you would like to make and the savings you could anticipate from them. So, I I found that useful. I hope you did as Well, I know I just got it to you this
morning, but that was when we got it back. So, um, the language within the contract itself, it tracks directly with their RFP proposal and the they submitted a revised proposal to us in May. Uh, as we did the introductory or
did the in-depth interviews with they and the other uh, vendors that were interested, you know, there were some specific questions that both Mary Ellen and Wayne had had asked and we pushed them on price. And so again, the contract tracks directly to that May 16th um revision of their proposal, the
proposal itself, and obviously the RFP. So I I feel like we're in a a very good spot and almost done. Uh on the pricing side, as I understood it in conversations with both Wayne and Katie, uh there was an idea that, you know, Wayne would take a very close look on the pricing side and Katie may take a
look at it on the legal side as well. Um, and so the hope tonight, obviously I'm happy to answer questions if I'm able to for anything specific, uh, would be that they sort of authorize those final actions by both Wayne and Katie so that we can get to the point of signing. Um,
>> that's a good idea. >> I hope. >> Uh, so I don't know if you have any specific questions. I I think you and I have seen it more than most. You're next in line. Um, so I don't know if there's any questions that any of the board members may have for us uh this evening or for me.
Not at this point. >> What decisions do you need from the board tonight? >> Yeah, >> it's it's authorizing the signature. >> Sure. >> You know, exactly >> with the steps that Wayne will take a final look with me on pricing and >> I have looked at the pricing. It
reflects to what uh the RFP and to what the original uh agreements had been. Okay. So, yeah. Well, I think we should be authoriz authorizing that, but I think we should also be having I think we should make decisions on what it's going to cost for the extra bins
>> and a decision a decision. We're >> getting there. Yeah, there he is. >> Oh, all right. >> We're getting there. >> All right. >> So, on the contract side, if if there might be a motion that you all are comfortable making to support that. >> So, I'm make a I'm make a motion to
what's what should this motion actually be? final review of the contract by the chair and you know I know you said you just did it but you know also final review on the pricing um >> review and signature >> by Wayne by Wayne by Wayne to authorize authorize it. So okay motion second from
Ted. >> Yep. >> All in favor >> I >> thank you very much. >> Great. >> Um so the next question is exactly what you talked about which there we go. The additional barrel fee discussion is something that I think you know I've had conversations uh with Mary Ellen and
Wayne, but also Wayne solid waste advisory committee have worked pretty closely on figuring out or at least Emily um where that should land and so you know I think you wanted to to give a rundown of >> what that number looks like. >> Lay it on me. What is the fee? Let's go. >> So
waiting for weeks here. >> You want the number or do you want the explanation first? Number. >> Uh the number. >> Okay. So we're looking >> these are additional additional band. This is this is after the 35gallon that everyone has and the 95gallon uh that everyone will receive for
>> So so we're looking at this in two different pieces. One is uh flash. >> Hold on a minute. >> Are you good? >> It's coming. >> Um you're good. >> You're back. >> Yeah. Um the uh the pricing of the $3
bag is was instituted in 2020 is uh our trash overall costs have gone up almost 50%. Since then, uh we've not had a raise in the bag fee at all. Um the prop the proposal is to go from $3 to 350
>> for the bag >> and then to go that times um 52 is 18250 >> or 182 uh and the prop the proposal is to go to one extra black 35gallon trash
or at $180 a year. >> Okay. And you how do we come to 180? So, >> so you just by multiplying that by 52, >> we looked at this, believe me, we ripped this apart. You have there there
lots of there's lots of deliberation behind the scenes. Um, one, we wanted to make sure we covered our costs for tonnage, just tonnage itself. The other part is we wanted to cover a small amount of the service cost. The burden
of the service cost itself. It's an extra 700 700 How much is this? Roughly just over $600,000 for to service the entire town. >> Trying to balance that together was and trying to come up with something that
was um equitable that didn't put the entire burden on the town's people who were not using extra trash. We thought we thought that being a fair number at 180. We actually looked at a little bit higher. We looked at a
little bit lower. Um, at the end of the day, we're paying for the tonnage incomplete. We're not losing any money on it. Um, and it pays for a small fraction of some of the extra some of
the service costs that are uh attributed to um collection throughout the entire town. So, >> okay. So, my first thought is, what if I'm a person who doesn't use a bag every single week, but I want a second barrel,
right? I'm paying for it anyway. >> You're paying for capacity. >> I'm Right. But I don't know. I think my gut is telling me that's a little higher than I thought it would be. Mhm. >> Um >> I understand for the convenience of it,
but I I'm just stuck on if I'm not that person that's using a blue bag every week. >> Continue. >> I'm paying for it. >> Blue bags. Blue bag is still an option. >> The blue bag is still an option, but that's going up too >> to 350, right? From Yeah. From three. >> So, I don't know.
>> We out of out of that. >> I kind of in my head wished it was I was thinking it was going to be like around 150. I don't know. So, my concern I'm sorry, Ted, hold on. My concern is that we're not high enough and that we're not high we're not high enough and that >> What do you mean we're not
>> Are we >> for the extra barrel? >> Yeah, for the extra barrel. If the extra barrel is only covering the tipping fee and a small percentage of the actual cost of admin and getting something
there, does that mean that a family of a smaller family is subsidizing a larger family's trash? Um, that's so that's the concern that I have. So if if but if but if you feel that this covers the tipping and it does
cover a percentage of the administration and it's something that can be re-evaluated and looked at again next year. I I think that's a that's fair. My biggest worry is that having people subsidize other people's
>> trash >> trash just like you know I don't subs I don't want to be subsidizing somebody filling their pool or using more water and I wouldn't want somebody subsidizing my usage of water sewer. I don't want I
don't want to see people subsidizing my trash either. So, I think it's a use it's a use issue, >> but I'm not sure how anybody would be subsidizing if I'm paying for the extra barrel. It's just how much I'm gonna pay for the extra. >> Does that does that fee $182?
>> 180 180 >> adequately adequately cover >> the tonnage >> the tonnage and the marginal excess tipping that would result from that. So the so the >> so the trash gets picked up regardless,
right? So there's really not an extra service charge because it's you're getting picked up once a week at your driveway. >> Is there any marginal change in cost >> to the for the curbside >> from last year >> or from previous years >> for having a second barrel for having a second barrel?
>> So there there is in the sense that it's more tonnage that the truck has to take back and make additional. So they could have to make more >> on tonnage, but it's not on service. >> The service cost is based upon how much tonnage that we that we that we have as a town.
>> Okay. So how much >> the >> is it per ton? >> The tonnage is 126.45 in year one. It goes up by 5% every year. >> $126, >> correct? >> Yeah. A ton. >> Per ton. So it's $126 per ton. So if I'm
paying for a ton extra of trash, one ton. >> Yeah. Wouldn't I just pay $126 for an extra barrel? >> Plus, the barrel costs. >> Yeah. >> How much does the barrel cost? >> How much does we're looking at about 12 bucks a year? >> 12 bucks. Okay. So, that's 138.
>> Mhm. >> I still am not even at 140. Why am I going to charge people? >> Because if you >> Where am I getting that extra? >> You're sharing some of the service cost. That's how that original $3 a bag was originally created. So
the the $3 fee wasn't for just tipping. It was prrating on some estimate basis and also taking from other towns as to what they were charging to make up some of the extra cost of just the transportation and
service costs alone, not including just the tipping fee. So, not everybody's paying that though, just the people that are getting an extra barrel >> because they're the ones driving. >> I'm I'm subsidizing the extra service cost if I want a second barrel, but not everybody else is if you're not getting
a second barrel, right? So, it's on the >> You're saying because if you don't use the sec, you don't use your second barrel all the time. >> Right. If you don't use it fully, >> right? Or if you use it for a bag. >> I made I made an est this is really just an estimation. We sold last year somewhere
It it it goes up and down somewhere between 40 and 45,000 bags. >> And if each bag I just made a >> 45,000 bags blue bags. >> Blue bags. >> Holy cow. >> Okay. >> It's actually there's 5,100 accounts. >> So that's nine 8 to nine bags per person
per year per household per year. >> Some are using none. Yeah, I mean there's based upon past >> um this the survey that we took it was something like 10% use it on a regular basis. So at the distribution curve, it's really kind of at the far end
that's using the majority, right? >> So >> if there's somewhere between 15 and 20% of the weight in relative to the bags, relative to the total tonnage that we're doing, >> right? There's there's it's not an insignificant cost relative to the total
contract. So I can get into the weeds in this, but the but to the the answer to your question, Daniel, which is a reasonable question you should be asking, right? It's a philosophical piece of ical question. >> Should you should you should should the extra trash user be
paying for part of the service burden, a smaller portion of it, part of the service burden or none of the service burden and then that just rests upon the rest of the taxpayers. >> Why? >> Right. And even if they are to pay a portion of it, would they be paying 40%
more? Right? Because if you get to 138 from 126 plus the cost of the barrel cost of the barrel, so it's really 160 168. >> 168. Did you >> 180 - 12? >> No, I think she's starting with the
tonnage, which is the 126 >> plus the barrel is 12. That's 138. >> Well, how do you know you're throwing out a ton? >> You You're going to say that that little barrel can accommodate more than a ton? >> Oh, I don't know. I don't know. I haven't run the I have barrel numbers
the black the black barrel >> an extra barrel how much could it >> yeah I I use around 40 lbs >> right >> for full barrel >> so even if you filled it every week >> right 40 lb 52 weeks 2 >> that's just over just over a ton >> okay so there's a ton right if you're
filling it right so that's where I'm getting that 126 >> plus 12 130 yeah >> but I'm still not at 180 right that's another 40% more >> yeah So the the cost of our service is actually more than the cost of the
tonnage. What I'm trying to say to you, the co the the cost of >> is it 40% more? >> You're not saying 40% more. You're saying 40% in addition to >> No, I'm saying 1380 minus 138,
>> right, is $42. That's about 40%. >> Yes. Yeah. 40. It's it becomes >> saying like these numbers are kind of like this is where it gets philosophical, right? >> It it's around 20 20% 20 25% of the entire
cost, right? So, we're not asking to double that amount. In other words, if you looked at the you want to take a like a huge 40,000 foot view, it's a $2 million contract,
5,100 residents. It's around $400 a household >> to to operate trash and recycling as a whole. So at $180, you're significantly less cuz recycling costs less in proportion to trash. You're actually
significantly less than the total what you would think of as the burden for just that one trash barrel. >> But I'm still just one household that I've already paid $400 for and and it's another 180. So how is it significantly less? Do you know what I'm saying? From that high level
>> like so I'm still just that same one household. >> If everybody had the same household would be one thing. You're you're talking about a very very small percentage. >> Mhm. >> It it it becomes expans. It becomes more concentrated in terms of of the extra
burden for that amount of trash. >> Right. So have we looked at what other towns charge for an extra barrel? Because I kind of have and I don't Yes. >> I have not seen anybody at 180. Uh, Tossfield's at 180 plus 65 plus $65 for
the the extra barrel. Um, we've looked at other communities. They're 150 plus the cost of the extra barrel. >> What is Marblehead going to do? Cuz they're going through this right >> right around now. Right. >> I don't know. >> Or Lynn the hunt. >> So, but but here's the deal. If you if
you buy one extra bag a week, >> right, that's going to cost you $182. >> Right. >> Right. So, so the question is if if people aren't going to be needing a bin, why would you get a bin?
>> Because if I have a bin if I have a bag every other week, >> right? >> It's kind of I don't know if you've done it, but it's pain in the neck to go and buy a whole bunch of bins bags when I really just need one every other week. >> Hassle fee. >> It's really a convenience fee more than anything to be honest.
>> Right. See? So, but you're talking about appeasing appeasing you for convenience and I think we're talking about >> capacity >> capacity and making sure that you know we we have something that for the people
that do have an extra bag or two every single week, >> right? I mean, I'm not it's not appeasing me if I'm actually paying for it. I'm just trying to understand how much I'm paying for or how much I'm asking people to pay for it, right? When
>> I don't it's not an exact science because it's a lot of it's philosophical. So why wouldn't we start at the lower end and if it doesn't work the next year, why wouldn't we then increase it? >> Because then aren't we asking people to subsidize? >> But what does that mean? >> Can I just Can I ask you just to walk me
through the framework? Just not the numbers, the framework. We started with the cost per tonnage, right? Mhm. >> Then there's the cost for the barrel and then there is a marginal increase in service cost as a result of excess capacity, right, running on this.
>> Yeah, it's harder to define, >> but it's and it's probably marginal, right? It's not okay. And that got us to 180 whatever that >> 68 plus to 12 bucks uh uh a year for for the cost of the barrel itself. >> Okay.
I'm trying to put myself in your in your >> over five years. Walk me through why that's doesn't make sense. >> Well, >> sorry. This is how my brain works and I'm trying to >> I I mean, I just went by what Nick just said was 126 for a ton. >> Yeah. >> For a year plus $12 for a barrel that gets me to 138, >> right? And
>> I can't understand the jump from 138 to 1880. >> That's extra 42 bucks. Y >> that's what I that's what my mind >> and that's what we're hypothetically saying is that marginal increase. >> So, I'm saying why don't you split the difference and start at 150 and if it doesn't work next year, you raise it to 175 or whatever the heck it is. Do you
know what I'm saying? When we don't really know what any of it's going to We're all We're making assumptions because we have no choice. But what if we're Do you know what I'm saying? We're never going to go down. We're never going to say >> Well, where did you come up with the assumption though of the additional of the additional amount?
>> Well, originally the calculation was was if you wanted to um if we we almost had a two we had a $200 number at one point. Again, this is this is based upon a lot of different assumptions. And those assumptions were
heavier usage within the barrel itself. Looking at more like a 50 pound number, >> like a bag you're like a bag a week >> bag going into the barrel. >> Well, we were looking at Well, we we figured you could you can you can compress more into a rigid barrel than you can with a bag.
>> Yeah. Okay. So, so kind of looked at okay, what it's got a 30 lb limit to it on the bag itself. It's 30 gallons. Let's say the bag's 80% full. We had a density number that we got from a couple of different sources and work backwards
and said, "Okay, um the um where's I going with this? Where the the bag, let me back up. The bag was around 27 28 pounds." Okay. If we assume
the amount of bag, but you're going to get a bigger bin, right? It's actually a bit of a deal. You're getting a bigger bin. You 35 gallon bin, and it's going to actually be more compressed than you can compress inside. So, we figured you could get around 40 pounds in a barrel, a bin,
maybe even more versus under 30 in a bag. So if you go to the bin, you're you're actually getting more for the dollar than you would for the bag. And from an from a revenue perspective
for the town, we're still paying 40 cents a bag for the fee that we that we have to go through with the company makes the bag and settles the the the distribution of funds. What you're suggesting though is from a
if I go and bought a bag every week for a year, I'd be paying slightly more than if I go buy a barrel and I'm also getting less trash excess. >> Yes. >> Yes. Got it. >> Okay. >> See, I I I think you have an extra bin. I I I don't think I think the assumption needs to be if you have an extra bin,
that extra bin is going to be filled. >> Yeah. You budget for the worst case scenarios, >> right? We don't want to come back to any year and say, "Well, the bin the >> Whoops. >> Right. we're we're low and we have 50 grand over I don't know whatever the number is, right? >> I would rather charge people less and
then potentially have to raise it because knowingly if I charge them high, I know I'm not going to decrease it. In reality, that'll never happen. Right. As a test, I would rather charge people that have been asking for this since we rolled out the first program, right? A
reasonable not and I'm not saying 50 bucks. I'm saying 150, right? or something that's a little bit less to see if it works to test out all of these hypotheses that we've all created here. >> Mhm. >> And if it doesn't, then you're going up to one knowingly that we're going to
potentially be rolling out recycling every two weeks, right? That's coming down the pike, too. Like, yeah, I would give people a break at the beginning and say, if you want a second barrel, we're going to try it at this price. We're going to try it at this rate. if it becomes a problem for us, we're going to raise it the next year or we're going to
institute something else that we will not, you know, will cover our costs or whatnot. But I would never imagine starting high and then saying, "Oh, well, that's just extra for us." >> Never works out that way, right? >> No. And then we're going to re revisit and go down. No, we're never going to do that. >> From a financial perspective, if we were
to go for $150 because that's a more narrow marginal increase in the service costs, right? A year from now, we're having this conversation. What's the worst case scenario? of that. >> It's hard. It's kind of hidden. It's hard. It's hard to see. We would have to govern that based upon
>> investigating how much those extra barrels were being used to >> Yeah, >> it's hard to do with how much it's not an easy number. It's just something relative to how many extra
coming in. We don't know the resvenue from extra barrel versus extra bag. >> It's conceivable that the tonnage won't change >> if we're selling this many bags and people are really going to go from an average of 2/3 of a ton to over a ton
and we're collecting the full freight for a ton tipped. It is conceiv but the actual tonnage may not change. If we're selling 15,000, 40,000 bags, 15 being used, whatever the final numbers are that we're able to get from way zero, that's already built into what Republic
collected last year. >> Correct. >> So the basic, you're right. >> That's built into their service like knowing how many times they need to go back to dump to complete the town and that type of thing. So the worst case would be it is a significant increase, Ted, because all of a sudden people are like, "Oh my god,
I got I can get two barrels, >> right? I've I went through the hard part when the town put us in this one barrel and now I can get a second >> and they just stopped trying. That is the worst case scenario. And that's bad from a policy standpoint and a financial standpoint. >> But like right now there's 5100 service
addresses and between 3,000 and 3500 tons of trash >> depending on how much we back out with the schools in the town >> when we separate that which we're doing now. So everyone is, you know, more than a third on an average, more than a third
below a ton per service address as we stand. >> So >> and that's with over overflow bags with the 30 one 35gallon the for the folks that are using the extra bins, there's a significant difference in I call it
consumption of the service than there is. So if the average user is, you know, we just did the math and divided it out by 5100, it's somewhere around 26 pounds a week. >> Trash. >> Yeah. >> Really? >> Wow. >> Yeah. It's not that much. And that
includes if if that distribution curve of usage really inflates on on the higher end, but it's it's small in terms of the amount of people. >> Those individuals, that group of people who have legitimate need, I'm not judging. If they have a need, that's fine. And it's just a question of you
should pay for it. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Right. So if if that concentration and that group of people requires the extra service, we're offering that ability to have that service. The assumption is is not only are they topping off the first
one where everyone else is not topping it off, they're using >> the full extent, >> right? So I'm making the assumption that they're using the entire capacity of that barrel moving forward. So whereas the rest of
the rest of the taxpayer base is not, >> right? >> Or at least the the not the taxpayer base, but the user base, >> but the rest of the taxpayer base is still not paying for the extra barrel. It's the person that's still committing to buy the extra barrel, right?
The taxpayer, the rest of the taxpayer base are paying whatever you're all paying per this negotiated contract. The person that wants the second barrel is still paying for it. It's just how much are they paying for it, right? That's the question, >> right? It's so philosophically >> it's not about the money, it's about the amount.
>> Right. >> Right. Right. >> You're paying. Yes. Question. >> It's the amount. So, and it's whether or not I I think hitting a fair number of what the amount is, but I think that fair number has to include the the
service of picking picking it up versus considering well the service is already a sunk cost, so just take my tonnage. You know, originally I was a big proponent of just
um paying paying the tonnage, but after looking at everything, just saying, well, it was actually Wayne who convinced me years ago, if you're if you are throwing out more, you should be responsible for also paying for the
service of what it costs to do that because you are a bigger consumer. Um, so I think the only question is what is the real fair number? >> And when I looked at it honestly first I just thought well if if it's equal to an extra bag just take the bag even though
you could put a bag and a half >> right >> you know I looked at it like you could put a bag and a half into these containers. So it should be closer to 200. >> So if you looked at the bag cost and you calculated and you put the full service cost in
>> Mhm. Okay, with with some assumptions and you said you know we did 40,000 just take a quick calc 40,000 bags each bag was filled up to x amount. >> Okay, with broad assumptions it was like 16% of the entire load
>> of of the ser of the entire trash of the town. Okay, it's >> like, wow, that's a lot, right? Take that and multiply that or take that as a proportion of the total cost of the service cost. It was like an extra
$92,000, something like that, spread over the $45,000. So, it ends up being like an extra $2.40 in addition to the what we're at roughly $225 right now. We were less six years ago.
right now at around 225 for the cost of just the tonnage plus the bag. So if you included the entire service cost, we'd be well past $4. We'd be closer to 450475 >> per bag. >> Yeah. If you included the service costs,
I'm not suggesting we include I'm just giving you that as a >> So we didn't service cost on the bag, but we're going to include service cost on the second bag. >> We are including service cost in the bag. >> Oh, I thought you just >> We always have included service cost in the bag. What I'm suggesting is >> so how did we calculate that cost that service cost
>> that original cost? >> Yeah. >> Came to that original >> I I I don't know what their their mechanics were. wasn't >> I I know that they just >> it was they wung it >> and there was and they I think they looked at the relative cost of what other um
right >> and we went because the tonnage because the tonnage at the time was the tonnage at the time was $75 a ton >> and then you took $75 a ton and then you you backed that out on I think the
number I even backed it out was 30 lb >> 30 lb a bag >> 30 lb a bag >> and where' you where' you get that. You just >> I didn't I wasn't involved in that. I wanted it. >> It was the capacity of the bag. >> Yeah. Okay. >> My pricing came out a lot lower than the $3. And that was my argument that I had lost. And
>> But at least you made it. >> Yeah. I made an argument. I made it lost. But but I I do understand the reason why the bag was more because it had to absorb the uh the cost of transport, all the other costs outside of tipping.
I just think there's a lot of possibilities. >> Yeah, there are. >> There's a lot of ways to go about it and there's a lot of ways to figure it out. >> And and believe me, I struggled with this and so did these conversations. We struggled with trying to come up with a a a fair number. >> Yeah. >> Um you know,
like I said, there was conversations of it should be over 200. I'm like, okay, well, that's >> how do you justify that? And as low as it should be at, you know, 140 150. I'm like, but you're not capturing any of the service costs at that point. So,
>> are we looking for a vote on this this evening? >> If we are, that's fine. I'm just asking. >> We probably need a vote sooner than later. How are people going to order make a decision on an extra bin if they don't know the price? >> Sure. >> But, correct me. I mean, like, I'm
that's just an idea I'm thinking of. >> Yeah, that >> the sooner the sooner we deliver this to the to the residents, the better. I think it's taking >> you can reevaluate this every year. >> So you've got $180. >> We're never going to go down. We're never going to go down. You know that as well as I do. >> I think we can go down. I mean,
>> we don't go down in anything. We don't go down in water rates. We don't go down in trash. We don't go down in taxes. It's the reality of life. >> Well, the contract the contract goes up 5% every year. >> I'm sorry. We don't typically >> negotiate down for anything that we ask people to pay for in this town.
>> So, let me We have $180 is uh what you're advocating for. What is a is there a dollar amount you're advocating for Daniel? >> I would advocate for 150. >> Okay. And that is takes into the cost of the tonnage plus the bag and >> evaluate it in a year if we don't if it doesn't factor that we're you know that
we're if we're at all in the red or whatever the factor is that you guys look at. >> So that would be my suggestion. >> Okay. >> But >> I understand all the work that you've put into this. >> It's okay. eons more than I do about any of this,
but I just I just feel like all the things we ask people to pay for is typically, >> you know, >> but is your number capturing capturing enough of the >> I went by 126 per one ton $12 for a
barrel got me to 138. >> I'm going to tack on $12 extra to get to basically add 10%. >> But but so you're only you're only covering tipping then? >> I am covering tipping plus 10%. that 13. All right. So, you're covering tipping, you're covering tipping covering the
barrel and 10%. Yeah. >> And you're saying that the extra usage in your calculations was 16% was the number >> the total >> of the total extra overflow. >> Yeah. And so I but I did that by bag, right? And so if if you if you took the total service
burden relative to that, it was like an extra $92,000. It was about a sixth of the contract. A sixth of the contract, right? And so >> of the 600, just so I follow what you're saying.
>> Yeah. If if you if you if you looked at the amount of overage that was being used in the community, which is based upon the amount, the only data that we have that we know is the amount of bags that have been purchased, right? And so we take the 40,000 bags
times 27 pounds and we get a number and that number was a proportion of the total tonnage that the town was paying for. And that's that was just the the basic math of how I got to that point. >> Okay. So I think if you take that
percentage though and that's the percentage of extra then I if that's the percentage of the total what the our total bill would be then wouldn't that be the fair number to use for Danielle's equation >> and that gets to 170 right this is just
saying the this is the 16% of the tonnage that is being that's being used over and above relative to the average amount is the tack on >> right Yeah. >> So it still doesn't get you to 180.
>> Does it get us to 170? >> 179 16950. >> It seems like >> if I follow all those >> if that seems like it gets us to the number of covering covering that percentage of the bill and covering the tipping. I just don't think it can be just tipping. I think it has to be a
fair a fair number to cover the the service of the to cover the service. And if it sounds like that extra percentage of service by the bags was 16%. Then use that as a gateway. So if the if the service is six if
you're putting service at 16%. Tonnage at 126 a barrel at 12. That gets you to 169. Ted >> 126. >> $12 for a barrel. >> Oh, I'm sorry. No, I did the math wrong. Sorry. >> I thought so. >> You said 16.
16 + 12 15816. So >> 160 we round up to >> So okay let me let me let's let's back up for a second. So if I look at it's
92 it was I think it was like 92 it was the cost right of vers of the service burden itself. So it's one6 of the service burden. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. per user.
The question is how many us how many how many the question that we don't know is how many extra users we're going to have. >> So I'm confused when you're saying the service cost because the service cost is the truck coming to your street going dumping coming back completing the town
>> which it's doing anyway. >> That's what I'm confused how the extra bag contributed that amount to the service cost. because they were is it the labor? Is it the time >> or loss capacity? >> That's Yeah.
>> Which is not going to be the same because it's going to be automated. So what >> about loss capacity in a truck? If you if you're if one house is getting two bags and the house next door is getting one bag, the truck can only hold 50 bags regardless of how many households it services. >> Right. >> That was the miss that's you're saying
my question or that was a good way. >> You're stating my comment better than I was forming my question. So someone that buys an extra bag is not equal to someone that has a second barrel. >> Well, no, same same thing, right? But a truck holds 100 bags. How those 100 bags get divided is
>> right. But we're only we're penalizing the person with the second barrel as opposed to the person that just buys per bag. If we're adding up to this extra service cost, >> it it's the same paradigm as the bag itself. the bag is part
tipping and part service cost, >> right? >> It's the same philosophy we've been on for six six years at this point. >> I'm not changing that necessarily. >> In fact, I'm even saying it's less than the amount if if I if we theoretically
should be paying over $4 a bag, we're only paying three. I'm just suggesting we go to 350 because I think that is a lot. That's a that's a big jump for for a lot of people. And I'm trying to keep that in mind. So if we go from 3 to 350, I I don't I think that's reasonably justified considering our trash costs
have gone up 50%. And we haven't adjusted, >> right? But if we're we're taking that same accommodation to go to 3 from 3 to 350, but we're not to go up to 180. Do you understand how you're not applying the same principle? >> Yeah, I just multiple a little bit of an increase here, but you're going from
you're finding the ability to go straight to 180 on a second barrel. Well, because you're because you're saying the second barrel is going to is going to take >> that that bag. >> Well, the second barrel if Well, >> if every house instead of getting a
second barrel bought one bag every week of the year$182, >> it would be $182. >> If you bought one bag every week of the year, right? >> But what if you didn't? >> Then you you just use the bags. You continue going on as normal as as >> and you have to remember these bins these bins will take a bag and a half.
>> This is a 40 lb bin. And >> so this is a bigger bin than the bin that >> No, it's the same size bin. A bin can take more weight versus blowing the bag, >> right? >> The size of the bin can handle >> people have to use more than a bag. Listen, we could probably debate this
for I don't care. Pick whatever. Let me let me I'm stuck on what I think. Let's get close. We just got close. We we just did the numbers 26 ways and it went to now we're calculating at 158 or 161, but we want to go to 180. I mean, it's up to
you guys. You want to go for 180, go for it. I I don't agree with it. That's just how I'm landing. But by all means, if you want to propose that, >> that's totally fine. >> So, the bags is being proposed to go up to $3.50 a bag. That's correct. >> Yeah. And you know, we're right in the
middle of the slot of 20 different communities. I just got the list of >> I'd like to see the comparison communities to be quite honest to see every single one and really understand where we fall. >> I I I have a hard time thinking they're all charging 180 for an extra barrel. I don't know. I could be
>> that list of what is >> we're probably the only community that has a small barrel. So, and >> I don't know that we're leading we're leading community as far as reducing our tonnage. >> So, we have a list of comparator communities that we've always looked at. Lynfield,
>> we're not we are not all in a new contract. >> Got it. Okay. So, >> that is a that is a significant >> significant issue. >> Okay. >> Lynfield is at the end of their JRM contract and >> still suggesting >> there are a number that just signed new ones, right, that we were just >> comparing ourselves to when we were
doing this project, right? >> In the review of this, it was a little more >> spread. So, Danvers, Toppsfield, um, and then geographically spread a little bit more in terms of the information that was put together by SWAC. I I think sort of to restate what you were saying, if
there is a motion for a number, there could be a vote tonight. >> Well, the only the only question I have is is I just want to go back to, you know, I'm not in favor of just a tipping fee. I don't I don't think that is fair. But
if there is a concern that the 180 cover picking up the addition if that number is too high, I just want to find out is there a way we can tweak this. And I'm just wondering, Wayne, is Ted's
Ted's numbers of adding that 16% in there, is that where do we stand with that? >> That's the same service fee number, right, that you would apply to the blue bags, right? Is that the same thing? >> So, let me just be clear.
>> I did the $126 times 6 1.16%. >> Yeah. >> Plus 12 got us to 15816. I never did. The 16% multiplier is not intended. The 16% was not intended to be a multiplier. >> But is that not the service fee we're
talking about? Isn't that >> right? That's what I was >> There's got to be a number that we're we can't >> Yeah. Now, >> so I think I I I have to recommend it's 9:35. We do have some other things we talk about perhaps that we just had to go back and retweet this number.
>> I think your questions are incredibly legitimate. I think the public would be should be asking the same questions. I'm more than happy to come back and show a couple of different frameworks how we got to where we got to
>> and then we can we can come up with a >> But it's safe to say to the public probably that the dollar amount will be in the 130 to $200 range. >> Definitely. >> I would say going to be to >> 150 to 200. >> Sure. But that's the range that people
should expect coming out of tonight. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Nick wouldn't mind getting the comparing communities. >> Absolutely. Cool. >> Um so we can get a a picture of that. >> I think that would be helpful. >> And and folks can still request knowing that the final cost will come and they
can just withdraw the request if they would like. >> Absolutely. >> On the website. >> They can plan on at least 150. >> At least they know that >> they have a I have a chance to get a bin and not buy those. And it will also help us got this 5 years ago when I had it done.
>> It'll also help us from an inventory standpoint if folks >> are that are thinking about it share that information as soon as possible. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Cool. >> And do we want to discuss the recycling number? >> I was going to say >> Oh, is it okay? >> If Wayne wants to put that out there, too. >> The recycling number. I think we have to
discuss the recycling number and also our opinion on going to every other week. >> So, a second recycling bin. Remember, you're talking about 96 gallons. Yes, >> it's not talking about an extra 35 gallons, >> extra 96 gallons. Um, the contract works
in that we pay 125. This is it's basically the same rate for weight. >> Okay, >> we do make revenue back on that. That varies quarter by quarter, right? >> Very little, >> right? >> We made some assumptions. It could be between 20 and $40 a ton. could be
lower, it could be higher, but that number backs off of that 125. So, we made some assumptions based upon density of known density of of residential recycling. Um, those bins full.
We average about 60 call it 70 pounds to full I mean full of of everything from glass to cardboard to plastics and everything and metals. >> What's the number? Go ahead. The average resident is only going to use around 11 pounds. >> Okay?
>> So, if we had gone every week, we were talking about $200. If we're going every other week and you need an extra barrel barrel, we're talking about $100. >> Okay. >> Does that include the same service fee? >> Yes.
>> I feel include here. I'm going to tell you >> he's not. No. Oh. >> $100 every two weeks. No. It was just for recycling >> 200 if we do every week. Okay. >> Wouldn't we take the same framework that we're doing with trash to recycling?
>> No, because we get money back on recycling. >> Oh, okay. Got it. So, that would offset the service marginal service fee differences. >> Yeah. >> So, >> okay. Got it. >> So, there's two questions here. Is the board's feelings on going to every other week? There's actually three questions.
going to every other week and if we are in favor of going to every other week like the majority super majority of communities in the Commonwealth and when we would when we would do that and then the third question would be what would be the price on that additional bin if
people felt that they needed an additional bin >> and your recommendation for the bin $100 >> $100 >> fair enough that's easy to remember >> um >> okay >> what's the savings to the town if we go to every other I think it's $147,000 or something. >> 168,000.
>> 168 >> per year. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And does that do we have an escalator >> like year two if we if we >> that's an additional 5%. >> So basically every year it would be that plus 5% plus 5. Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. And it whenever we decide to make a change it will be prrated for the year that we're in. >> So whenever we make the switch to Marielle Allen's point the savings begin. I I loathe the fact that I'm even about to say this, but I don't understand how we could not do that. >> Go to every other week.
>> Yeah. So >> that that dollar savings is an FTE. I mean, >> at least >> an FTE. >> Yep. >> Right. So >> if we're offering 95 gall an additional 95 gallons for $100, >> we've got opportunity for recycling once
a month for the big, you know, they remember the cardboard. So and cardboard is the bulk of of recycling. I I just >> So you don't have to you don't have to get another bin. You could just drop off your cardboard once a month or >> or you cannot, right? Have you calculated the cost of not recycling?
People not recycling because of this >> people >> because of every other week trash. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. They're going to fill up their bins. They're going to they're going to >> they'll be filling up that extra bin, >> right? >> It's going to cost between $150 and $200, >> right? >> Yeah.
>> It's going to be less than $200 though, right? I just don't understand how we cannot I mean I'm just saying >> the only only thing that really makes sense for is glass >> where it costs theoretically >> who recycles I mean what's the majority of people recycling glass >> people throw the glass in
>> I do the glass do you >> have that you recycle most people recycling glass gets recycled >> of course it does but who has glass to recycle is what I'm saying you have glass >> lot we don't glass >> engage >> I don't typically it's cardboard or
plastic typically I I recycle glass. >> I don't know that I ever dispose of glass. >> I like bottles of Diet Coke. So >> Oh, okay. Mine are plastic tin can. >> So I'd like to make a motion that we move Well, let's figure out the when we would
want to move before I make the motion. So the next question is when would we want to move? Um I know that Katie brought up three months. I know Ted, you brought up January 1. Yeah, >> same same thing I think. >> So yeah, Danielle, do you have an
opinion on three months or January one or Ted? >> I mean, not Ted, >> I don't think it makes sense to institute in the middle of the winter personally, but I think >> the only reason I suggested January 1 was to get through the holiday season with a lot of recycling and Amazon boxes or whatever your online retailer of
choice is. >> Sure. Yeah, >> that was my reason to suggest that. And if we make this change in three months, you know, we're talking, you know, July, August, October. >> I mean, >> as long as we communicate it out, right? I mean, I we're talking about it now, so it's active in people's minds. But,
>> you know, if you then say we're going to punt it three months, will they, you know, >> we then have to communicate. >> I think we're going to there's a lot we're going to learn in the next few months as this everything goes into place. >> Yeah. >> I would like to set the, you know, as a target for six months. I'd like to
continue to evaluate this in terms of the timing, in terms of how the community is doing. I think I think the community is going to be surprised in how actually successful this is going to be. I think there's going to be a bit of an adjustment. Um particularly on the recycling side, a lot of feedback has
been how can I possibly go every other week. >> Yeah. >> I think once they see how big the barrels really are that >> the general public should probably become more comfortable >> with the idea. You know, some of the feedback has also been, you know, what if I forget, then I'm out. I got a whole
month. I understand that, but it wasn't like we're not we're not like reinventing the wheel here. >> You know, this is something that is that we used to do before 2020, >> right? Correct. >> Actually, no, it was before I apologize. It was before um >> every other week it was before 2011. So,
is that I >> I think everyone's in agreement if I'm questioning the timing. You're >> Yes. >> So, what's the timing? January. >> Sure. Do you want to make that? >> So, I'm going to make a motion that we go to every other week recycling beginning January 1.
>> Second. Is there a second? >> I'd like to I'd like not to necessarily lock that date in. I would like I would like to >> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. >> Then, are you going to make the motion or are you gonna >> Well, my motion's on the floor. So, if nobody's going to second it, >> well,
>> why is not that a good date? Pretend that was good English. Why is that not the right date to implement that? >> I'm actually okay with I'm I'm okay with the date, I guess. >> Okay, good. >> As as as as the data guy, you know, I'm like, I really want to evaluate how this is going because frankly, I go sooner or
later. I'm I'm I'm open with >> You're good. If you're good with the date, >> I'm good as a projected date. Okay. So, >> second the motion. >> I'll second the motion. There we go. >> Oh, >> okay. So, >> you're the chair. Ask all in favor. >> Thank you. Um Wayne, all in fa Oh, no.
Roll call. All in favor? >> I I >> I'm a no. Daniel is a no. >> Okay. >> Okay. On to the next. >> So, just so I'm clear, we will get additional information will be on the agenda for the 21st earlier in the
night. Yes. Talk about the pricing >> and finalize >> barrel pricing. barrel pricing on both recycling and >> trash >> with the PEG starting point being where it was presented. But we'll gather the data. Yep. >> As a >> but people should know that if they feel
they need to order an additional barrel. The only other the only question I have is um what happens if you have people who don't necessarily want a 95gallon is it 95 gallon recycling and they want like a 62 gallon recycling. Is that a
possibility? No. Okay. All right. So you go, >> we want the smaller barrels. >> Go big or go home. >> Correct. >> All right. >> For what? The second barrel. >> For the recycling, the second recycling barrel >> from an inventory standpoint, we want to manage this so that we are supporting individuals who need the smaller barrel.
>> Right. >> But to we just want to keep this as simple as possible to >> Yeah. Right. >> Okay. >> Okay. So >> So sorry, go ahead. >> No, what were you going to say? >> I was I want to introduce the next item for you. >> Okay. Hawthorne RFP. So, just so folks
understand how we've listed the items this way, and this will allow us to I saw you looking at the clock just now, Marielle. It allow to figure out how you'd like to move forward with this. But these were the nine items that you as a group all identified at the last meeting. >> Things that were really decision points or deliberative points that you wanted
to make sure we talked about. So, we've listed them this way so anyone can conceivably come to public meeting and say, you know, I know that you're talking about number one or you didn't get to number one last week or it's number three. Um so people sort of understand where you are in the process of going through the items that you
identified for deliberation. >> Very logical setup. Thank you for doing that, Nick. Um so your idea is that we're going to take you know each case, right? Um week by week. So the first so we would discuss lease for sale this week,
>> right? Potentially one pillar. >> That that was how we had set it up this way just based on how we had talked about it. I'm happy to take feedback and change. >> How many different discussion points did we identify? Nine >> total. >> Well, they're right here. I see them on here, but is it all of them? >> Yeah, I think at the end of the discussion you were talking about trying to find a tenth and I don't think we had
arrived at a 10th. >> It would be for deliberation. There's certainly >> things that fall under this that will lead you all to your final determinations, but >> these were the high level topics that you and I as a group identified. >> Okay, >> that makes sense. >> How do we want to
>> So, can you just describe like what it means lease versus sale? you're going to grade somebody. You the idea is to grade a prospect versus >> if I remember if I recall the conversation you all had correctly was really not even about this wasn't about the RFP. This was as a foundational
decision. >> Are we seeking a long-term lease or are we talking about the sale? >> All right. Great. >> And so if it's something that there's a quick discussion, obviously we can continue to move down. But >> you want to do like a rapid fire. >> Well, ideally you'd spend a little time thinking about it. And >> I think a straw pole might make sense.
>> You know, if if Yeah. Are these yay or naysay or are we rating it on a scale? >> Yay or >> these are decisions that you all need to make in order for us to be able to write an RFP, right? >> Like separate from the rubric. This will help guide how the guide >> written and how the RFP seeks out a
respondent. >> For example, lease versale is probably the easiest one, right, for most people. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm going to guess >> in the case of Hadley and Pine Street where their long-term their lease their land development agreements that are >> as opposed to selling. >> Yeah. Some of these are easy decisions,
some of them disposing of the property, but some of them are, >> I would think, relatively easier. >> So, I think it makes sense to take a straw poll of each one to understand which ones we're going to really drill down into and others that we're not going to need to take as much time. >> That's fair. That's a good way to look at it.
>> So, for me, I'll start off lease verse sale. I tend to I would lean heavily towards lease, right? I'm not I'm not in favor off the top of my head of selling the whole parcel of land >> or subdividing it and selling even
pieces of it, right? I'm of the mindset that the town should retain ownership >> barring some astronomical amazing thing happening. I totally >> I won't rule anything out, but that's where I would lean. Right. >> Agreed. >> I uh fully agree. It it should be retain
the ownership should be retained in perpetuity. should be leased for >> right >> um 36 or 99 year lease. >> Do we want to run down these quickly and just >> you can that'll help us plan if >> I'm in agreement. I I have no desire to
sell that property. >> Okay. Residential use. This is probably going to be more difficult conversation or not. Maybe it's not >> if it's something where you all think that you don't want to necessarily go into a straw pole and be >> you could potentially skip. It can just be this is one that we know there's
going to be a deeper discussion at some point if that's how you want to do. Is there going to be? Well, I think >> Well, give it a shot. >> Let's go. Let's just go down and just express. All right, I'll start. So, residential. >> Hold on. >> Did you make a decision whether you wanted or the other three? >> I want what? Lease. Lease versus sale.
>> But was there >> Oh, >> he said lease. >> Strong preference to lease. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Residential use, Marielen. >> I am against residential completely for for a number of reasons, but mostly parking and >> Okay. and being too crowded.
>> Okay. >> Wayne, >> I just go ahead. >> Okay. Me. So, I'm not I'm not against residential entirely. Um I'm not I'm not against it because I'm not convinced that we can finance it or a developer would be able to finance it logically
without a very small portion of residential, but I'm not entirely for it either. So, I I don't >> I'm in complete agreement. I It is my preference to not have residential there. It is my strong preference to not have residential there. But if someone has a gang busters idea and they need residential as component to help make
the awesome idea work, I would be open to considering it. But it is not my preference under any way, shape or form. >> I am absolutely against residential. Okay. >> Um just philosophically, it was not the um uh the intent when we purchased the property. >> Okay.
>> Um at all. Uh I and I and I still over the last 15 years of seeing that entire Humphrey Street developed watching you know residential go up as opposed to something for for public use. Um, no.
>> Okay. Open space proportion. Mariela, >> what >> I think this is a >> just to give you a little context. This was the idea. >> I want to say it was Katie had at one point said like a third a third a third if you were saying parking development open space type of thing. >> Okay.
>> Is and again we don't I don't want you all to feel like you need to give direct feedback on all of these. >> Maybe we don't have direct feedback on this one. I don't >> let's let this be a much deeper conversation. >> Municipal parking. >> Marielen, anything?
>> No, I don't see how they're I don't see how it can be used for municipal parking. I think that whoever is going to be using that lot for commerce or whatever, they need the parking. >> Okay. And I'm of the mindset that parking is the number one biggest
problem in this town. and we have to somehow figure out or give somebody an edge that can give us some clue about how to have municipal parking. I don't care if we pay for it. I don't care if it's by the hour. I think parking somehow has to happen there. I don't know how, but I don't know what that
looks like per se, but I think it's something that has to be discussed for that piece. >> Y >> Ted, >> I would I agree with you on thinking that's one of the number one issues in town. I have a I would look more favorably on an application that had
some incorporation of public municipal parking. >> Okay. >> Some component. But >> right >> again like I'm going to give probably the same answer to almost everything. But barring an awesome idea that proves otherwise I would prefer municipal parking be incorporated to some extent. >> So when we're talking about municipal
parking, we talking about for general use for the entire business district >> for any >> So if you have a business there and you're trying to make a viable business. Yep. And anybody parks there? >> Well, I'm just saying for those businesses, whereas, you know, uh these
parking spots are reserved for the I don't know, let's just say there's six businesses in this property, right? and and we decide to go to a balance between open space and business, whatever that ends up being, which I think that's a part of the separate conversation, but assuming that we do,
>> I would prefer to see that limited to the businesses >> that that are being serviced there as opposed to wide open municipal parking. >> Okay, >> I agree we have a parking problem, but if I had to grade it, it it's honestly one of my it's on my lower priority list
compared to the other pieces. >> Okay. All right, that's good feedback. Building reuse verse demolition. Mariela, >> I think that that has to be up for I think that has to just be up for full
discussion as far as what the return is >> on the space. I think that's a big discussion. >> Okay. Um I am of the mindset that it should probably be demolished. Um, I cannot I don't know, but I don't know because I'm kind of a TED mindset of
maybe someone will come in with some proposal that has some really great ideas for the space, you know, so I'm not sold that it has to be, but I the way it looks right now, I can't see I can't see it, but maybe. >> I think the one thing I just want to add to mine, if that building is demolished,
I think everyone needs to really understand the loss of space we lose on that property. It is very significant. Mhm. >> So I think >> in terms of a future building, >> right, >> and in terms of you uh site use in terms of setbacks for
>> but if that area was if that area was open public landscaped park, >> right, >> then what's the difference? >> Because part of that building from what I have understood, part of that building's foundation is built into the >> into >> into the stone into what looks like natural stone is supporting part of the
building's foundation. So if the building comes down, some of that foundation is going to have to come down as well. And it's we're not it's not what you see right now. What you see right now looks like part of the wall, but part of that is going to come down with the building. >> Oh, well, we would need to know that. >> So, you lose all that. So, you lose all
of that space. >> I don't know. >> And then you have to then you have to come in and you have to come in more. >> You have to come in more >> and you'll you you'll never be able to build out on that again. Those are just you just have to look at all the facts. You just have to get all the all the facts in front of you. >> Yeah. Right. And then there's a chapter
chapter 90, the public access to the waterway. stuff that if the building comes down, we have to incorporate that. It's not the end of the world. I mean, that's perfectly fine, but it's an additional regulatory barrier that we will have to >> navigate. Okay. >> That we don't have to navigate, right? >> Jeff, chapter navigate waterways.
>> Yes. Yeah. >> There depending on the reuse, I think chapter 90 could be implicated anyway, >> even if it was kept, but that's a >> I mean, what if you're to take down the building >> not for Yeah. What if you're to take down the building and just build other
building or or they're supposed they put it different spot >> but but you so what you want to do is you just want to look at your whole makeup. You want to get the whole map there so you see exactly how much space we need to know how much. So that's a key. >> This is what we're coming back to for sure. >> Yeah. Right. Okay. >> I I just to make sure
>> we need all the factors here. >> I am >> I am willing to hear multip if we had to put an RFP. I would like to see a contingency plan with what could they do with the existing building. >> Yes, me too. >> I'm not saying it's not to me it's not all or nothing. Is there part of part
parts of the building that can be saved? I mean, I've talked, >> you know, I've had so many different multiple conversations. Some people have said, you know, it's actually more expensive to try to rehab the building than it is to take it down and put it back up. Can you keep the foundation? >> Let's get the developers to tell us. >> Yeah. So, so I'm more inclined to go
down that route, which is leave it as an a potential open option, but the bigger point is how do we integrate that into >> usefulness for the community itself? >> Yeah, I think >> I do think this will be something that
you all will need to spend more time on. Obviously, we need more information, but >> yes, >> in terms of writing the RFP, and this gets into the rubric question, which is like >> how do you weight it? What are we what are we weighing is more beneficial, >> right? >> Cuz we can't just say we would like to see both. >> Yeah.
>> It's got to be one. >> I mean, >> I don't think we can say which one is moreialicial, >> right? >> Can we leave it alone like that? >> I think we have to not We have to explain how we're scoring it. >> Right. So, if if it could be as simple
as like >> Sorry, I spoke before I finished. >> It could be a preference 40,000 viewpoint. We're trying to sort out what's the ones that are going to kind of already we have to come back to >> at a core defin. >> Okay, it's 10:00. Let's >> but we should have it at a 30,000 foot
and then the next conversation we can align it more to the rubric and then specify the rubric scoring. >> Okay. Environmental standards. >> This I believe was related to >> your former colleagues focus on passive house.
>> Oh well um we have uh we have a standard in town. We have the we already have whatever the standard existing standard is >> and we're one of the few communities in the state that has adopted it already. >> Right. So that's really not a question. I I think that one should kind of go away because we would just
>> we're just at the front. >> Okay. >> You know, >> I mean plus almost anything that gets done here has to go to the planning board for approval. >> And they're let me rephrase that. Anything that gets done here will have to go. >> So why do we even need that? >> Environmental standards. Was it the intention to be a a standard as opposed
to some other question that was supposed to be like sustainability in general? I don't know what the intent >> Oh, wait. So, what is it? If somebody comes in and says they're going to go above and beyond what our standard is, >> right? Or the stretch >> the stretch code or something. >> I think I think we might be able to just
look at this as do we want resil uh uh environmental resiliency, energy efficiency, etc. on the site and do we score things better if they have solar panels on their >> I think I think that's >> it really is a question of going beyond the stretch code I think or super
stretch >> right yep >> is that is it that you want it to be net zero >> whatever goes in there >> on the top of my list >> it is not on the top of my list I think that's >> I wouldn't discount it I wouldn't negatively weight it but I just it's not a >> but if it's if it's on there and someone
comes in and says that they could be you know more environmentally sound above our standards I would think that that would that would you know get a >> advantage >> advantage to them >> perhaps grant >> I think I think you know what's what is this message telling the developer is it saying hey we're really you know if this
if I'm going to look at this in two extremes and one extreme is if this was the number one thing right >> what would that be messaging to the developer which is >> that sets a difference >> we want everything you know we want >> buildings to be looking in a certain way do we want them kind of fit into the
environment as opposed to >> I I think this is as simp as as simple as leave it out of the rubric and when you do the narrative about the community you can say in 2024 Swampscott adopted the specialized stretch energy code >> we've been agreed
community period move on >> right but you're saying you're not you're not looking at that as giving somebody additional points if they go above and beyond >> what the stretch code is correct >> the stretch code is we're one of >> 20 30 municipalities we're in the top
10% of communities for adopting this. >> And my concern about it would be would someone >> downsize the dollar investment they're making in terms of land use development in order to keep their proforma in line and take those dollars Yeah.
>> and put it into meeting passive house. >> I agree. >> Or some standard like that. >> To me, I would ra rather have those dollars meet our specialized energy code, but then use those dollars to invest in other parts of the property. >> Mhm. outside of the excessive standards
above what we >> to get really in the weeds. The KERS number, the scoring will be higher by the time we're building. So, >> what we're talking about today, they're going to have to exceed in the future anyway because it it goes up the state and international codes go up. >> Mhm. >> A lot.
>> Okay. So, let's go to walkability. >> I don't mean nobody can change where it is. >> No, I don't think it was about changing it. on-site walkability, I think is what Katie's reference was, >> was my understanding. >> She was taking a lot of these from the study. >> I don't really know what that means to
be honest. So, we're gonna skip that. >> We can set that aside. She had talked a lot about being able to get to and from >> I don't know >> parts of the community that are So, let's let her articulate it so that I don't >> so you don't butcher it. Let's go to streetscape. >> What is that fitting in with the street?
I think that this was um part of the discussion with the >> reuse authority reuse committee representatives that were in the room. >> Part part of my recollection, part of their conversation and what I had heard from committee members >> was that some of the recommendations had
>> uh buildings, some of them were on the street because they wanted it to provide a feeling of what swamps got used to have before everything got torn down >> some years ago. Um, and then others had them set back because they didn't find that as as much of a value. I think Streetscape is
>> I think it's a I think there's merit to considering it. I don't know the standards that I would rate it on, but >> I don't have standards I'd rate it on to be honest. >> I would need to think about that more because I think there is value in that. >> That might be good to come back to so that folks can articulate it and then we can try to draft something that reflects
the priorities that you all >> discuss. I mean I think it goes in line with the next one which is synergy with hotel commercial corridor right I mean you don't want anything that's going to be sticking out like a sore thumb and doesn't blend in but synergy with hotel commercial I mean yeah of course you want something that's going to be
complimentary and not you know >> so I I >> compliment I don't I think this has got to be I think this is the number I think this this and open space are tied for number one issues >> so I had heard somewhere down the line. That's why I
asked that question. Everyone's eyes kind of opened up is I didn't think there was going to be a a ballroom or a place for a venue for like weddings and parties and things like that >> at the hotel. >> Yeah. >> For some reason, I I've been told that. I don't know where I heard that information from, but that led me
towards thinking that, you know, we really need to have some sort of venue to support the hotel, >> right? >> Tell me what exactly we would be supporting is my question then. What are you supporting >> the synergy to the hotel?
>> What What do we need for that synergy? >> Something. >> So, if I want to have a If I want to have a wedding for one of my kids, >> I'm going to need a place to and I want to have a hotel right there. I need a place to have a wedding. >> You could have it in the hotel. >> It's only 150
140 guests. That that won't even cover half >> saying the ballroom. You want a physical space to have the wedding. >> Yeah. I think Mary Ellen's point is you >> there there is value in having a space with a a function capacity in excess of 144 people
>> especially on the north was >> especially yeah especially on the north shore >> I mean ocean view nan has 230 people capacity >> and they are booked >> ocean view nan >> they're >> yeah but they're probably making money on the street I mean if you wanted a bigger venue you go there I I don't know
you >> or you could go across the Agree. >> I I think this might be better >> looked at with the lens of >> being complimentary to our existing commercial corridor as a whole. >> That will include the hotel,
>> but it will also include the nine other restaurants on Humphrey Street and other businesses there and not wanting to cannibalize any one of them, but complement all of them. I think >> that's a tough one. To me, that's how I will look at would look at something like this. >> Because in my head, I'm like, why do I
need two function facilities within 10 ft of each other? Why do I need if I have one that's got 144 seats, what do I need one that's got 200 seats? What what town has two events? You know, >> you and you said sending up cannibalization between the two and in
in a competition that you really don't want. >> I mean, it just is a rarity. When does that ever happen? Like, I don't know. I don't know. We're also getting into like a really >> niche use case here. If there is a case for a function hall to be really profitable there, I'm sure a developer
will make the case to us why and we will have more information to consider it. But >> I am not in the function hall business, so I don't >> Well, not only just a function hall, but also, you know, if you do have, you know, like right, we have right now we have, you know, an entertainment a
performing arts >> entertainment type of a facility opening up. So, you know, if you have concerts and things like that, then you have a hotel that can >> that's a good reasonable >> things like that. >> So, I think that just I think the
synergy between the hotel and the commercial corridor is just really important for whatever goes there. >> Could we say it's something that's bringing people from out of Swampscott into Swampscott? >> I think that would be great synergy. >> I don't want to call it tourism because
it's not really tourism, but >> but it kind of is. I mean it is >> if you have a venue >> interest or activity or >> yeah or it's visitor generating or something >> something I don't know >> all right so this at least ident you got you did get some >> something like feedback from these that
can will further drill down but >> um you know some things that aren't you can see what's important not important >> okay so that was a fairly helpful exercise >> that helpful to you >> yes so what are we going to have to revisit for further conversation >> so we're going to have to revisit residential use Mhm.
>> Uh parking uh building reuse verse demolition >> and open space >> and open space portion and I think you know synergy with hotel commercial you know how it fits in right >> and I I would think one of the things we didn't have on here but also is
important and it kind of dances around a lot of these is community use >> right that could be a park but that could also mean >> something else I don't know but there's a lot of different definitions of what community use could be all of them should be inor incorporate correspondence that's kind of open space
proportion too. >> Yeah. Well, community use if you're talking about chapter 90 is >> I'm talking about open uh open spaces work, but >> community use requires I mean um chapter 90 requires um it's like
public access and >> to the 10 ft space into the water, right? >> No, but it's also like they need to support it. So the boat clubs and the Charles needed to add bathrooms, take stewardship of areas like >> that type of thing. think the, you know, Lewis Wararf Boston Foundation has a Yep.
>> conference room that's available to everyone because it was part of the >> for free because it's part of the um redevelopment of it. So there's certainly ways we could craft something that it aligns with the chapter 90 ideas that's part of the RFP. >> So if someone's doing it, they just they have to be creative about how they would address it. Do we want to?
>> Yeah, that's a good >> That's kind of what I would >> look I I I would love to as we're going into this almost add the subtopic under three. Not as we're talking about proportion. >> Yep. >> Get a little more definition in terms of
what type of business you like, what type of open space you like. >> That's a that's such a great point. You know, give a little more you'll be okay with a dry cleaner or you're talking about you'd rather have a coffee shop, right? Is that the type of thing you're talking about? Yeah. Or, you >> know, or do you say no to a uh
>> I don't know if you can dictate that. >> You probably have a preference for Right. >> I mean, we're the land owners. We can dictate whatever preference for what kind of >> But but I don't know if we want to get to that. >> I'm not You don't want to restrict that either, >> right? Yeah. Ted, I'm just not sure we
>> I think our hope should be that as we put it together. >> Yeah. >> Someone that's going to put a gas station or dry cleaner would never want to do it, >> right? too much for >> too much we're asking for. We're looking for a partner for identifying all these other priorities.
>> Those are two uses that would forever ruin the property like >> we wanted it. But I'm just saying okay because there's been a lot of visions expressed over the last five well four how many years into this now? >> Four. >> Four years. Um you know I had some things that I
thought would be really cool. other people have brought their attention. Everything from, you know, open air concerts to, hey, if you had a like a like a market, but even like just like an open an open market, people could come in and it's constantly being
refreshing to bring new vendors in. Um, and and how that might look or even a a rentable kitchen space where >> Oh my gosh. There's all sorts of really cool >> things that could happen, but you'd have >> I I think
>> you would have to It's a different business. Those are business different setups for the business case use, right? Versus just bricks and mortar buildings >> that have squarefront and you put in whatever you want to put in, right? >> As opposed to attracting different types
of businesses that would attract people to that corridor, >> right? I think it's going to take a vision, right, as a visionary person to come up with an idea and hopefully >> I think the number one that's a thing that I mean someone else's I think that and not ours but
>> okay I just bring us in >> I think we have to I think the one thing that's really important that we need to we need to keep in mind is that the healthier we get that hotel in the healthier and the busier that hotel is the more beneficial it is to this
community. >> I agree. >> Mhm. >> And that's something I think that really has to be >> on the top of our minds. >> I agree. >> That's a good point. >> I mean, this is a such a unique site that I think once we get our act together and get, you know, in a few months down the line, we're we are going
to get nice respondents here. And I cannot imagine this legacied historic site is not going to attract a lot of attention from >> wellresources development companies. Not dissimilar to how we attracted some of the most well-resourced hotelers for the Hadley. >> Right.
>> Right. So, >> and that's going to turn out really great for >> it's gonna turn out fantastically. >> Okay. So, now we are on to So, you have feedback. >> Yes. >> It's pretty clear for you. Okay. So, you can, you know, redo this for the next time. >> Um, on to the consent agenda.
>> So, I want to remove some things out of the consent agenda. >> Okay. Um, for item number one, yeah, >> I would I want to remove June 17th. >> Okay. >> So, I would make a motion to approve line item number one in the consent agenda
um as amended with the removal of June 17th. Do you have a second? >> I haven't had a chance to review the minutes, so I'm not going to vote on them. >> June 17th particular I want to get to that spot. What >> I mean it's no big deal if you want we
want to talk about it separately basically. No, just remove them. They'll go one away. We'll do them next week. >> Do it in the future. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay, that's fine. So seconded. >> Okay. >> All right. All of all in favor? >> I >> Okay, so we're moving
>> and then um on approval of appointments. Uh I just have the I just have one comment on approval of appointments and that is I'm so thrilled that we finally have
added an individual into the water and sewer advisory committee, Andrea Moore, after over a year and uh I'm pretty ecstatic about that. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve the
uh number two on the consent agenda. Okay. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Yep. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I I >> I. >> And then on number three, I want to remove the executive session minutes 2023, 24, and 25 only because there there's
one issue. I have to talk to Katie about one of these items, and I don't know what year it fell in. So, I'd like to make a motion to approve. >> Hm. >> Which one? >> Uh, I'd like to make a motion to to approve year 2021 and 2022.
>> Basically, table >> taking all of 2023 23, 24, and 25 to the next meeting. >> Okay. >> I don't have a problem with it. >> So, you're going to second? >> Sure. Second. >> Okay. >> Um, all in favor? Hi. Hi.
>> Hi. I'm I'm nervous about it, but I I thought we had to do these for a reason. >> So, we're reporting out on the work that you all did at that meeting. >> Yeah. >> There's a problem with one of the items in there. >> Okay. >> And I just need to talk to Katie, but I don't remember what year it was.
>> Okay. So, we definitely will have to we'll connect on this so that we have to do it on the 21st >> because we >> because we have to report for a certain reason time wise. We need to report out the work that you all did in terms of like these are the ones that we're still withholding. These are the ones that
we're releasing. So, >> yeah, there's just one in here. >> Okay. >> Um just a quick comment for the notes. Um on number two, there are term lines that have asterises on them. >> And just for the record to know that is
uh intentional so that we're rolling off they become three-year terms, >> okay, >> at the next time. So just for for >> this is part of the cleanup that you spend time with. >> This was part of the cleanup to make sure that we're constantly revolving. A lot of people had been on like one-year
terms or two-year terms and it was getting confusing as opposed to their next time they come up after their expiration. That member person whoever that person is will go back onto a three-year term. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So we So we're back to the to the motion on the table. You approved it. We took We're all set there. >> We're all set with everything. Yep. >> Okay. >> So now we're on to select board report and comments. Uh Marielen, >> it's after 10. I don't report. >> Okay. 10.
>> On Friday at 6:00 p.m. the Boston Tall Ships will be anchoring off the coast of Swampscott. Doable from Galoops and Littleles Point and Fisherman's Beach Phillips Beach. There are >> Ted is inviting everyone who was >> I thought that was on the other side of Niha.
>> There are eight of the 22 boats that have an anchorage designated off of Little's Point and the other boats are off of Broad in Broad Sound off of Nant. The eight up here, I don't know which eight of the boats they are, but it's going to be really cool. Yeah. >> What time is that, Ted?
>> They have to have their anchors down by 6 PM on Friday. Most of them, I would imagine, will have it down sooner. Um, and then they line up in Broad Sound for the parade to Boston Nant off Nant on Sunday morning. >> Uh, Saturday morning, excuse me. >> Okay,
>> that's really cool. No, I did not. I knew that they were all on the other side in a hunt. >> I didn't know they were going to be off Little Point over there. It's um, yeah, six boats. Going to be really cool. >> And you'll have a select board seating on your sailboat. And what time do you want us there? >> We're all at Ted's house for viewing party.
>> Yes. Public meeting on my on the sailboat. Sure. >> Okay. >> Anyway, that's it. Go check it out. It's going to be cool. >> Wayne. >> Um, no. I'm all good. >> Okay. >> So, can I add one thing? >> Sure. Nick, >> I did not mention this TA report. Um, we
are going through the process of switching to Zoom for public meetings. >> Oh, thank God. >> In order to manage with cable access and with um usage uh by time. So, there'll be probably two webinars. One will be ours, one will be for the planning
board. that will just always be for us because they allow for a little more control in lockdown and then there'll be two to three um regular meeting accounts so that we'll be able to handle the capacity even on the busy nights leading up to town meetings. >> Okay. Is that costing us a lot more money? >> Not a lot more. It's something that we
had talked about doing and planning for. >> So it the ease of use and the ability to record and get them to cable access more readily. It eliminates this idea that Joe and his team are sort of chasing who logged in and where it's saved and how we get it to them. Okay. It's all in a
central location. They can go in, download, clear it out. >> Um, >> this is going to make Joe happy. >> Yeah. >> So, okay. >> As as someone who um >> Can I make a comment before you? >> Yeah. So I did do some research regarding your hesitation on it and I
did um reach out to them and they have provided how I can disable that option where you would have to do that to authenticator. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Type thing. So I did do it and I can forward it to you to show you that. Um >> okay. But we're disabling two factor authentication here
>> so that if when you're giving if I'm letting meeting room one out that you're going to whoever was the last person would have the code to >> Okay. you would have to reach out, but you won't have to do that. >> It I was just saying it was a major problem during COVID when we as a person
who was using it to run meetings, >> we had to find out whoever was the person who owned the account that email was connected to to get their 2FA, get them on the phone, make sure we could enter it in to have access. >> That was one of my hugest hesitations.
Um when we moved to teams it was a huge sigh of relief as a member who again was running multiple meetings. Um so are we going to still be able to use teams if we have >> public meetings will move to Zoom? >> Yeah. So we're not going to again we'll
just we will make a clean break at some point >> and go to Zoom so that that's where people know that we are >> it >> more people know how to use it more people are comfortable with it and it allows us better capabilities in terms of recording and making sure that those recordings get posted where they need to
get posted. >> Okay. >> For a lot of meetings right now it's unclear who started it, where it's recorded and yeah >> then we're asking the team to chase that down. >> Yeah. No, I understand with due with due respect and coming from a person who was running these meetings, it is I think we
were better off training doing some basic training with with committee chairs to be able to manage that for themselves and not having to rely on staff. I found it surprising that we needed to rely on staff for this long where it was something that they intrinsically knew how to do already at
their in the professional life that they should have been able to manage going forward if they have a committee uh email address. So that that's just my that's my feedback from just personal experience. >> Well, wait a second. So, but does that
but what he's what he's saying my only worry is the expense but >> it's an enterprise Zoom account, right? We're spending >> $100 a month or something on this. >> Yeah, it's I believe it's a total of like $1,000 that we have budgeted for and it's part of a way that we think
operations will work better for town staff >> and for cable access as well. Mhm. >> We also believe that it's a better experience for the user that's coming to our meeting because you're not getting bumped around between participant and >> you know we don't know how to unmute. We
don't know like it is more widely accepted and more used. I mean from DC from DCR where Nick and I worked together in past experiences, Zoom has provided them much better control over the meeting and easier adoption with
public participation like bar none significantly easier. And in our planning board experience, I can before I took over as chair, but the previous chair I know was very outspoken in their disdain for for teams and their ability to use it and was outspoken for years
advocating to your predecessor town administrator that we should change. So I know this will make her very happy. >> I think part of the issue when we talk about prices when they discussed this during COVID, it was that dozens of people were going to be getting accounts at town hall. Town hall staff can still
have a staff level meeting or an individual elected member, but for public meetings, we want to go to Zoom so that it is >> right >> easier for the end user that's participating from the outside. >> It's better for us to maintain the videos and get the videos where they need to go
>> and the controls are, you know, >> they're more user friendly. I I don't know how else to describe it. Like I use Teams at the state, I use Teams here and I use Zoom in between when I was in Milton. >> I it's it's much simpler or someone that's sort of dipping in and out of it to be using Zoom than it is for
>> to be using Teams. >> Question will each committee chair or whoever that's why we're doing three meetings, three meeting accounts where if three different people are all meeting in one night and it's not a select board night. There's actually four accounts that are available.
>> Ideally, the webinars would only be used because they they provide the greatest level of control would only be used by planning board and by us. >> Okay. The three meeting accounts would be the ones that would be scheduled between and among all the other volunteer appointed committees. >> Will you will you need staff to do it or
will you need the the individual chair will have access to those? That that was really the trajectory of my question. >> They'll be signing up through through me because I have to book the room as well. >> Right. Okay. So it would be one less on
one person connecting and doing it all versus right now we have >> you can't have every chair doing it. >> Wait a minute. So it all it would all be on you as the >> it would be request but it would be more organized >> having the calendar. >> I'd appreciate if you give us the
opportunity to do this because we are the ones that are doing this dayto day. >> I'm confident that we will be able to make the switch. I will make sure that you know she was already Shannon was already looking at the 2FA stuff to make
sure that that is not a hurdle. We can also speak to other communities that are that are doing this. Teams is not widely used >> for this type of thing. Teams is widely used at the staff level >> not as much for the public meetings when you look broadly.
>> Yeah. I mean it's up to you. >> It's go for it. I'm just giving you my feedback. >> Okay. >> And I think we we're already working to to address it. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. So moved. Second.
>> Second. All in favor? I so Shannon who made