I'm eating all my candy now because why not? >> Okay. Good evening and welcome to the March 18th select board meeting. Uh we are being recorded. Please, if you would rise for the pledge of >> allegiance. 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. No, you're fine. All righty. We will start tonight with
the town administrator's report. >> Good evening. Thank you. Um so I just want to give a few updates on a few things. Then as usual, I'll open to questions. Uh included in your packet tonight is the um one-stop application for the Veterans Crossing project. Just
wanted to give you the update that had been submitted. It's something that Marzy and the team worked with. Are you guys? It's that one. Michael Draft, you have it open right there. Yep. um that is submitted as part of the process to secure funding uh for the
program. We anticipate a good outcome. We're hoping and optimistic and we'll keep you informed as we move forward in the funding cycle to let you know where that stands. Um but again, I want to ask or thank the folks at BBH as well as our team in economic development because they did work very closely uh to make
sure we got that submitted on time and into this funding cycle. Uh I wanted to give an update on the rail trail. I think the last time we were here there was a question of where it would land on the tip. And since then uh we had a meeting that uh Mr. Gishman joined us with with Secretary Yang and other
senior staff at MASDOT as well as our delegation. Um I think from our standpoint it was a a very productive meeting. They walked through sort of where we are, what role they have with the MO, which is the Metropolitan Planning Organization that decides what goes on each 5-year TIP plan. It's an
annual exercise uh where things come off go on you can apply each fall to be added that type of thing. Um the the work there uh as we described where we are uh they were very open to the idea that they would work closely with us to begin review of pro pro uh progress in
places where maybe in the past they would have waited until we were further along uh begin review of things that have been submitted uh and sort of you know make sure the process is moving as quickly as possible within masot so that the no can see that there's demonstrated progress. uh as we move forward, we'll
let you guys know on where we where it where it lands and where it stands. But as I said, it's an annual uh effort. So, if it were to come off this year's tip, we would work very closely with um the senator, the rep uh and the folks in the secretary's office to make sure we have everything in line to be able to move forward, reapply in the fall, and get
back on. It was again, I think, a very productive meeting, and I I think they're very open to the idea that we have been continuing to make progress um and that we were in several cases waiting for their feedback. They also promised to take a few things sort of out of order so that we didn't have to wait until June to get the next bit of feedback. They could start taking what
we have as we go. Um, on the HR front, I just want to highlight a few things as well. Uh, we are in search of a new assistant town accountant. We had an individual who we had anticipated joining us. She ended up going back to her previous employer. So, wish her well. We've continued the process of
interviews. We have it reposted. Uh, you know, looking for any great candidates. We have a big crowd here tonight. If anyone knows someone who may be interested, please share that the opportunity exists. Uh we're looking forward to getting someone on board. In addition, we're um we have a identified
candidate for a new customer service representative um that the team has talked to and I need to review finally so that we can move forward in that process. We're looking forward to adding someone down there. On the public safety front, the police department did another round of the oral board interviews. There is one remaining vacancy as of
right now and they have a number of candidates they would like to move forward. So, we'll continue to let you know where we stand on that, but progress there has has continued to move forward with the chief and his team making sure that we're identifying great candidates and getting them in. Um, and then just quick note on bargaining, we
have, you know, there still two groups that are open and DPW whose contract is up at the end of this fiscal year. We are in contact and in conversation with each of them. I I don't have any particular update to give other than I wanted to let you know that we are, you know, actively engaged and and working at different points in the process from
ground rules to to bargaining. So there will be updates coming, but I just want to let you know that we are engaged in that as well. Uh quick update on the Hawthorne site. The proponents have been in the site a couple of times with their trades people to understand the needs and anticipated costs around executing the plan that they have in mind. Uh no
work has been done. This is literally just being in there and getting a better sense and fine-tuning what they think the investment would be needed to operate the way that they would like. Uh in addition, I've been in contact with their attorney and the first meeting there will be this week. Uh and again, we'll continue to give updates as we go,
but that's sort of where we are as of today. Uh on solid waste, the RFP has been distributed to the firms that we met with in addition to other firms that had responded in neighboring communities that we didn't sit down with uh to try to spread that as wide as possible. questions, written questions are due
next week on the 25th. Uh, and then there's also a sort of meet and greet opportunity that's a part of it that is on the 26th, uh, which is at town hall as well. So again, moving forward there, hopefully we'll have more detail and more, um, more information for you. On
the IT front, I just wanted to highlight that we completed our review with EOTS, which is the state IT system. They work with municipalities and school systems with a free audit that they do to make sure that from a security standpoint and best practices around both hardware and personal identifiable information and
more that we're doing everything we can. They gave us a report. There's a number of things that are sort of lowhanging fruit. I've already talked to HighQ about implementing um and you know we're on a path to sort of address each of those things. We were not in a horrible position. They said we're relatively good compared to other communities when
they come in. So that's great news, but there were definitely opportunities for improvement and we've begun that process. Um, finally, you know, the the one piece that I just want to highlight, I know we'll be talking about the budget in greater detail later. Um, with the idea of regionalization in mind, I just want to highlight over the last couple
of weeks, I've had discussions with both um the NAT town administrator and Mayor Nicholson about any opportunities both on things that have worked well and, you know, things that we might be able to do in the future. nothing specific, but I figured as part of the report, it's important for you all to know that we're looking for those intergovernmental opportunities to regionalize where we
can and where it makes financial sense for both sides. So, that is the end of my report for this evening. >> Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? >> With the Hawthorne, we have 30 days, right? >> Correct. >> We're on day what?
>> Uh I want to say like 13. I'll get you the exact number, but >> No, but yeah, >> we voted on it at our last point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, we've reached out to council and they only recently replied, >> right? We had been on site with them the
week after uh you all awarded that, mentioned it in person, reached out on the 10th, reached out again on the 17th. >> Something additional. Um, when you're talking to communities, can you um have conversations with Salem? >> Yes,
>> that'd be great. And on the on the tip, when did you say that we were going to get no know more about it? >> I think their next meeting is tomorrow or Friday. >> I believe they will be voting then, >> but we also believe the the day before
we last had a select board meeting, we thought that was going to be the day that they it was shown as struck through. Um, so they may or may not be voting on it tomorrow. I think the idea is they'll be voting on the full plan tomorrow. The question is whether or not an amend amendment will be made that will make sure that we stay on it for this 5-year cycle. Otherwise, it would
be that we're sort of applying and looking to get back on starting for the instead of the 27 to 31 cycle, the 28 to 32 cycle. >> So, we need to have a So, with that money, that money covers construction. >> Correct. >> Design >> and constru. >> We have design money right now. We do.
Right. Right. And then >> Sorry. What about money for the taking of land? >> So, we have money that was authorized at town meeting which should conceivably cover both design and necessary takings.
It is a question >> you might want to look at might want to look at that just have a have a good plan on how that's going to be handled. >> Okay. >> Okay. We will move on to public comment. Um public comment will be three minutes.
The small microphone at the edge of the first table is the microphone tonight because standing microphones are not back yet. Uh Joe is going to make a public comment and therefore we'll demonstrate the proper way to use said microphone. Joe, please state your name and your address and we can start public
comment. >> Thank you. >> Uh my name is Joe Dillette. Uh 148 Elwood Road, precinct 3. I wear a lot of hats. Um one of the funner hats is the organizer of the Blue Big Band and our spring concert is coming up on April
12th. The Blue Big Band is not the Big Blue Band, it's the Blue Big Band, so it's most it's adults. There are some uh high school students in it. Um we primarily play Duke Ellington. This is uh a really fantastic piece. We've grown to about 20 members now, which really is
amazing to me. So, the sound is fantastic. So, if you're into jazz, you're into Duke Ellington or you're curious about it, uh, come check it out. Sunday, April 12th, 2 p.m. in the Swans Auditorium. It's $10. It's free for youth and seniors. We are a program of
the Swans Senior Center. Um, they're awesome uh people to um be collaborating with. And we've also received a grant from the Swans Culture Council this year, which is super exciting. So, um we're supported by them. So, I have cards in the back. Please take a card, pass it to a to a neighbor or a friend,
and we hope to see you there. It's going to be an awesome show. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> You don't need to push the button. >> I don't need to push the button. Okay, good. >> Don't push the button. Is that what's >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the select board. My name is Christina Kala, 31 Rock A, and I'm here representing the
Swamcot High Track Boosters. I am here because our track at Jackson Park has officially surpassed its breaking point and due to its deteriorated condition. We have been unable to host meets in over a year and will not be able to host them until the track is replaced. As the
finance committee recently discussed, this $1 million replacement is no longer a future project. It is a current necessity. We are asking for your full support to move this forward for several reasons. First, this isn't just a school issue. Jackson Park, including the
track, is a multi-use community space. The track is regularly used for track and field practice for the middle and high school teams, which are around 200 athletes, for residents to walk, run, as well as youth sports teams using the field for practice. The concern I bring
today is the same as what was raised by the capital improvement committee. We have tree roots causing mine causing dangerous uplift. This makes the track a literal minefield of tripping hazards for everyone from a high school sprinter to a senior citizen out for a morning
walk. We are essentially holding our breath every day, hoping a student or neighbor doesn't catch an edge on a rooted root damage lane and suffer a preventable serious injury. Second, at this point, we are looking at multiple classes of students who may never have a
single home meet. Our track athletes don't get a senior night at home. They don't get to see their banners displayed at their own fields like our other sports. They are homeless athletes forced to travel for every single competition, which only increases our town's travel costs. Third is the
financial aspect. Between our middle and high school programs, track and field brings in approximately $75,000 annually in athletic fees, just outdoors. Please note, these are my own estimates, not provided to me directly. Our families, including myself, with a middle school and high school track
athlete, are paying for a premium experience. Yet, our children are being denied a safe place to compete. Furthermore, the boosters recently invested after years of fundraising in an $18,000 state-of-the-art timing system that is currently sitting in a box because we have no finish line to
use it on. We have the gear, we just need the ground. Finally, I want to speak to what happens next when we do replace the track. Before doing so, I want to express gratitude for the $35,000 in state funding secured by Representative Armeni and Senator Kiteon. However, we must be better
stewards of this asset. Over the years, many have seen misuse of the old track. Things like bikes and dogs on the track can speed up the process of ruining the surface and would accelerate the deterioration of the new one in the future. We need a clear maintenance plan and rules of use so that when we spend
this $1 million, it lasts for decades. We shouldn't let possible past maintenance gaps prevent us from providing a safe environment for today's residents. We aren't just asking for a slab of rubber. We are asking you to mitigate a known safety hazard and give our kids a place to feel the pride of
representing their hometown. Let's get them off the buses and back onto our safe home track. Thank you for your time. I don't press the button. >> You do not press the button. Just speak your name and your address. >> Hi. Um, my name is Anthony Kala of 31
Rock A. Uh, I'm here speaking about the track uh as an athlete with a few fellow athletes as well. Uh, most of you already know me, but you if you don't, uh, I am a junior at Swans High School and I've been running track since middle
school. Uh, I know the booster shared the numbers already, but we want to acknowledge our experiences as athletes training there each day. I understand that the cracks in the roots are just maintenance items that seem to be
listed, but to us, they are obstacles that we have to dodge. And especially when training, despite not even having the meats, we have to be very careful of the roots because they can be preventable injuries, but the roots and
the cracks can cause dangerous injuries. Like I would hope no one tears their ACL, but it is possible. Uh then like the booster said already, we have no experience of senior night currently for the outdoor track and I think that would
be beneficial. Like Simon is a senior and sadly he won't be able to have his senior night this year. We definitely think that it is a worthwhile investment and we think that
like the investment on the track, it would benefit not only the outdoor season but also seasons like cross country where the area around the track is used and it would help with just the overall maintenance. Uh, and we know this is a large
investment, but as students, we don't just want a new track. We want to make sure that it stays in good good condition for the future classes to come. Uh, Lincoln, he's a freshman. Hopefully, he'll be able to experience
it. But we're not just asking for it as a group of teenagers who run in circles. No, that seems like what we do, but we're asking as members of the public community who use the track and faces of a growing program.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. Good evening members of the select board. Good evening everyone that's here today. My name is Yuan Godfrey. I am the publisher of Swamskit Neighbors Monthly
magazine that is distributed throughout the Swampskit community. Um thank you for this moment to be here. I hope I'm doing this right. This is my first time. Um, so Swamskit Neighbors Magazine was created six years ago and it was created
to bring people together to share stories of the people who live here. Each month we highlight residents, local organizations, small business, and everyday moments that make this community feel like home.
What I've seen is that people respond to feel and seen. Families reach out to share their stories. Neighbors learn about each other that they never knew before. And it's a simple magazine, but it's
creating real connections throughout the community. And that's something our community is in great need of. The magazine is growing. The feedbacks are incredibly positive. Um, but to keep servant residents well
and to reach more families as it is currently limited, I'm asking for your partnership. I'm looking for support in opening a few doors. Introductions to community organizations
help spread awareness that this resource exists for everyone and guidance on how the magazine can align even more closely with the town's goal for connection and engagement. And your support matters because when people
feel connected everything else in a community becomes stronger. Communications part communication participations and trust are include are certainly included. This magazine is one small tool that will help to continue
build the foundation of togetherness. I appreciate this opportunity and I thank you for your consideration in this. I'm happy to follow up with anyone individually, collectively to explore how we can work
together to keep something this beautiful continuing in the town of Swamskit. Thank you. >> Good evening. Emily Westwolfen, 31 Devin Road. Um, select board members, um, I just wanted to, um, do a quick update on
the repair cafe that we have scheduled. It's the second repair cafe that's scheduled for, um, April 11th at the senior center. Um, we had one in October, which was very successful, but we are definitely looking for more signups. It's an opportunity for reuse
as the solid waste advisory committee. We're not only looking at the recycling and the solid waste. We're also trying to make sure that people are you reusing items they have at home. Um so this is an opportunity to bring something um that can be repaired. Um has to be portable of course and there are
repairers, expert repairers as we call the volunteers available um on that Saturday um April 11th. Um there's um sewers, I mean sewing items. Um there's electronic items, small appliances that can be brought, but the most important
thing is that um um residents need to make an appointment. Um so there's a sign up. Um there's a link on the town website too where we have the flyer posted um and also on our Facebook um page and through the social media but it's important to um make an appointment
so you can matched with um the expert repairer and also receive some feedback prior to um the um repair. So thank you Um, for the record, my name is Brian Watson, uh, Oak Road. Um, three minutes
is not enough time to talk about my concerns regarding the possible lease of the Hawthon building, which is why I sent the board uh and the town administrator my letter of March 15th. Um, the letter still only just outlines my thoughts, but at least it gives the
board uh more than I can say in in three minutes. But but quickly back to leasing issues. Um, I would rather the town not accept either of the two proposals that it has received. But if the board is determined uh to rent out the building, the
proposal for a center for the performing arts contains contradictions and omissions, and it raises questions that nobody has satisfactorily answered. The proposal does not fulfill the requirements of the town's RFP. It does not describe how much the center will
spend, what building changes will be made, what revenue from its programming the town will receive, and most importantly, it does not acknowledge that this is a temporary project. It states in writing 11 times, no less, that this is intended to be a long-term
project. Does the select board want to renew this lease in 2028? This misalignment with the town's RFP matters. There is no story or narrative that can explain the logic behind the proposal. At the last meeting, I watched
the board itself speculate about the finances, scope, and nature of the proposal. How does anybody invest significant money into a project such as this and then walk away in June 2028? It just doesn't make sense. and the town
would be prudent not to ignore that fact. I I am keenly aware of the financial duress this town is under uh probably indefinitely. Uh but I think that approving this proposal without answers
to the puzzle that is this project would place the town in a vulnerable and disadvantaged position with all kinds of exposure. If the select board is inclined to improve this to approve this proposal, the project proponents are required to give the town a financial
programmatic and explanatory narrative that makes sense. I hope that the board will give thought to the issues that I raised in my March 15th letter. Thank you. John Bond, 24 Lincoln Circle. I have just one short comment, which is
the results of the RFP for a short-term lease demonstrate why it's not in the town's financial interest to enter into one. The low amounts that would be generated are for the reasons indicated. Namely,
how can someone justify putting investment into that asset for a short period? They can't. So, what happens is the town will through the end of the lease term generate well under market
income. Think about the time period that you have available to you now. It would have been great if you'd started back in November, but you can still start now. put it out an RFP,
make your decisions as to how you want the property to be used, and get through a process and have something moving and in place hopefully during the first quarter of 2027 and generating market
revenue for that asset by then, not waiting until June when we still won't have put in place a reasonable proposal. It's in the strategic interest of the town as well to do this. Think through what you really want to do with the property first.
Thank you. >> Don't push the button. Good evening. My name is Jim Smith. I reside at 176 Puritan Road. And join my colleagues. We all served on the reuse committee. We don't speak for the committee. We speak individually, but we sincerely have an interest in this parcel. And I can't
believe we where we're going here. Um, our electric group came up with a pretty creative option as a starting point, not any kind of a finish point. What I've read here was a Swampscott Center for the Performing Arts. I think what we're going to get is a bar and a band. Lots
of bands. I don't know how else economically the thing makes any sense except for a bar and a bunch of bands making noise and Friday and Saturday night and they can probably make some kind of revenues there. This building was built in 1968 thereabouts.
Imagine what the codes were then bringing this building up to codes today in 2026 the cost I have no idea. I frankly regrettably neither does anybody else. And yet this group wants to go forward with no idea what it costs to bring this thing up to code. Plumbing,
electrical, we got a stretch code in this town. I guess they have to meet all those things. Food. That's very intense in terms of a code. I have no idea. In here it says they may put a million dollars in. They got a million dollars. Not sure. They're going to put it in.
What are we buying here? As John just said, let's get on with it. The building's in the wrong place. In 1968, it probably made sense to put it where it is. It blocks the views. It kills any shot for a park. It is the exact wrong place in 2026 to have that building sit
there. Let's move on. Let's look for some developers. Let's go out to the world of architects, of urban planners, of thinkers, of creative folks, and say, "Look, we get this great parcel and maybe two options. We may have parcel two. Show us what you can do here, but
it's got to be a whole lot more than a bar in a band." So, I really urge you to be very cautious with this. This does not serve our town. We've got a $7 million oceanfront municipal snow parking lot right now. You can't do any worse than that. Let's go out and find
what's possible and let's develop that site so the whole town can enjoy it, generate some revenue, and really the high-end kind of stuff, not so much what Johnny Ray here is suggesting he might bring to our town. Thank you. Okay. I have I received an email for
public comment, so I will read it into the record. >> There's one online, too. >> Okay. >> There's one online. >> Oh, there's also one online. Okay. Uh, Mr. Keller, why don't we unmute him and let him go first?
Sure. probably. >> Go ahead, Mr. Keller. >> Yes. Yo, uh tell me what we're preaching for. Um I just wanted to make a comment about the people that are casually throwing
around, tearing the building down, knocking it down. Um the town has an asset. um as taxpayers we um that would be just um very uncertain because we're making our own parcel less valuable. So
I wish the best for the the performing arts center proposal. Um but I think keeping the building open until a long-term plan is is solved is really the only um strategy that the town should make. And I'll just keep my comments brief and at that Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mr. killer. All right. So, this comment is from Judy Anderson from Marble Marblehead Architectural Heritage. Judy Anderson notes that beyond the farm the Glover farmhouse historic value to
Swam and Venon Square and the housing connection to a regionality and nationally significant historic national hero. The Glover building is actually an asset to the property and to the development, which could be constructed on its former farmland. Removing the
smaller historic structure would be quite detrimental to that intersection visually because the short historic structure benefits the area both visually and spatially as it helps to balance the corner by breaking up the scale and the massing of the taller
surrounding structures. Without the historic building, the residential structures would be pulled forward to the corner because the development company would take I'm sorry, would make the tall four-story structures longer to eliminate the fifth floor on the rear
building. Uh I am opposed I am not opposed to the project itself. However, I believe that without the General Glover House, the proposed very tall buildings would dominate the corner detrimentally forever. Thank you. Sorry.
>> No, I'm good. I just wanted to reread it. >> Oh, okay. Um, so seeing no further public comment, we will now move on to item number one under new and old business update and discussion from the town town's election review committee. >> Good evening. How are you?
>> Um, my name is Jane Spalding. I was the vice chair of the election committee. I'm here with my colleague, I'll call you a colleague, uh, Marta Seroda, who was the chair of the election committee, and we're here to present on our work and our recommendations. We're going to
take turns presenting. We have a much longer uh report that we've provided to all you of you. We will not go through that whole report tonight as I see you have about seven other items on the agenda. So, we'll try to be short and we're also both uh well happy to come back at a later date if you put this on
the agenda again for further discussion. Um so, I'm going to turn over to Marta and we will walk through our pres presentation. >> Uh as you may know, um our committee was tasked with identifying ways to increase voter turnout. This included considering potential changes such as election
timing, early voting options, and other initiatives that could make voting more accessible. The committee met approximately every uh two weeks throughout 2025 to research these issues and develop um recommendations. Um to inform our work, uh we relied on
several sources of information. This included research on voting practices, publicly available voter turnout data in Swamcot, and the expertise and experiences of committee members. We also received information from the assistant town clerk and gathered community input through a survey about
barriers to voting. Uh, and here this slide lists the members of the town election review committee who contributed to the work. I'd like to take a moment as well to thank all the members for their time and effort throughout the year. I now turn it over to Shane to discuss data we
received throughout our research. >> Thank you. All right. So, this slide is was generated by AI and you will see there's are some flags at the bottom that shows my lack of skill with uh with this, but it does highlight some of the key issues that we explored as part of
this work. Um, and we drew, as Marty said, we drew on existing research. And I'll just share a couple of data points and that you'll can find more in the slide deck. Uh so this first slide um well we we examined through this work voting uh
patterns in swamscot. We looked at over time we looked at data by different subgroups and uh in comparison to other communities. Um we Michael Bryson was really helpful in providing us with a lot of that information. Um this chart shows turnout in local elections
generally are generally much lower than in the national presidential elections which happen in November. So you'll see the rates are around 75% for those November presidential elections and then less than 25% and maybe sometimes much less than 25% um for the local spring
elections. Uh another thing we examined was the voting patterns by age. Um, so this shows how voters under 30 have the lowest rates of turnout. Um, and that was an issue our committee uh addressed and we'll get to that in just a minute.
Um, the other thing we did is we found out a lot of research um on voting from across the country and about voting locally, but we wanted to see if we had missed anything. So, we fielded a survey of residents to ask them about what they
thought some of the issues were as well as to help us identify solutions. And so, this chart shows it was a very we had a response rate was about 250 people. So, it's not representative, but we used it to try to identify some new ideas that maybe we hadn't come up with. And so, some of the things that stood
out here um were that some of the key issues were that people were preventive in voting because they did not have enough information about candidates or about issues. people were too busy to vote, they weren't a aware when an election was happening, um or they didn't feel like their vote made a
difference. Um for other data that we examined, you can look in our report. Thank you. Um based on our research and community feedback, uh the committee identified several key issues that affect voter turnout. For for each issue, we developed specific
recommendations aimed at improving engagement and participation in town elections. Um that being said, um one of the key issues the committee identified was um that many residents simply are not aware of town elections or do not have information about when they occur or
what is on the ballot. As Shane just said, um this leads to the first issue um this need to maximize town dissemination channels for voter outreach. To address this, our first recommendation is that all town departments help disseminate standardized voting information. This
could include reminders on department newsletters, websites, and social media so residents receive inconsistent information across multiple town channels. Our second recommendation is to use the code red notification system to send reminders about upcoming town
elections. As you may know, Code Red is a town's emergency notification system that sends alerts by phone, text, or email to residents. While it is typically used for urgent notices, it could also be used to send reminders about important civic events like elections so residents are more aware of
key voting dates. The second issue the committee identified is the need for ongoing and expanded capacity to engage voters. First, we recommended establishing a permanent election committee. During our work this past year, we identified many
ideas and issues that required continued attention beyond a single committee term. A permanent committee could continue monitoring voter turnout trends, evaluating election practices, identifying barriers to participation, and developing new initiatives to encourage civic engagement over time. In
addition, a permanent committee could serve as a consistent point of coordination between towns, election officials, and community organizations to ensure that outreach efforts aren't ongoing rather than limited to a single report or initiative. Second, we recommended expanding the role of the
election registars to include more outreach and community engagement. Election registars as are the local officials responsible for maintaining voter registration records and overseeing aspects of the election process. Expanding their role could help could help um involve distributing
election information, supporting voter education efforts, and assisting with initiatives designed to make voting more accessible to residents. I now turn it over to Shane to discuss the rest of the recommendations. >> Great. So the third issue the committee discussed was the lack of engagement
among young voters. And so as I shared earlier, people aged 18 to 24 have the lowest voter turnout of any age group in Swampscott and also in the US in general. Um there's also evidence of declining levels of civic engagement a young among young people. Um the state
has tried to address this through mandated civics education in the eth and tth grades. Um and then and engaging young people can help with voter turnout through that throughout the life co course and I'll say a little bit more about that in a moment. So we have three recommendations in this area. Um the
first was to recommend creating a youth council to promote civic engagement and have youth weigh in on key issues of importance to our town. Other communities have created such councils including Wakefield, Beverly, Framingham, and the state of
Massachusetts. Um, and so that's an opportunity to engage youth in town issues. They could also help in our uh recommendations to expand social media outreach related to voting. Um, and the idea is to give real civics education.
This kind of real life civics education will impact youth in their later voting patterns. Um the next recommendation was one that was discussed um at town meeting. Um and we recommend that uh we lower the voting
age in town elections to the age of 16. Um when students vote with their families um and when they're young um there's evidence that increases civic engagement later in life and there's some research on this. We also know that
young people pay taxes and some are functioning in adult roles and they're affected by local policies um especially related to education which is the largest portion of Swamcott's budget. Currently there are 335 approximately
335 16 to 17 year olds in Swamcott meaning that they would represent a pretty small percentage of eligible voters but there could be some real benefits to engaging them early in the election process. Um there was some concern or I'm just
spending a second longer on this one because I know it was controversial. Um there was some concern about cognitive um the cognitive abilities of young people at the town meeting and there is a lot of research on this and the thing that one of the things that's required for voting is what's called cold
cognition. So it's being able to um make decisions in calm situations. um the situations when you can process information, you can deliberate, you can re reason with facts. These are all the things that takes to be a voter. Um the
vote 16 movement has caught on in towns in the US including Massachusetts. Um statewide the me the legislature hasn't passed any laws, but it's considered bills. and locally Brooklyn, Boston, Somerville, Conquered, ACT, Actton, and
Northampton and Southboro have all passed related um uh laws. Now, I will say this would need to be um brought to the state level, approved by the legislature. Um so there are lots of steps um but we wanted to put this
forward to the select board. The third um recommendation in this area, I'll just say this one briefly, is to establish youth participatory budgeting. This is a process that where you give some amount of the town budget and let a group of people, in this case it would
be young, go through young people go through a structured process to allow allocate funding for certain priorities in the town. Um other places have done this. It could be a very small amount, $5,000. Um, other places have done this with the whole with the whole town, but
what we're recommending is just um with a group of young people, allowing young people to engage in that budgeting process. >> Okay. And so this is our last set of recommendations. >> Ask a quick question. >> Yeah. >> Could you define youth for me? How are you guys defining it in this slide just
so I know? Is it under 30? Is it really Do are you really meaning under 18? >> Yes. So we had some discussion about this. Um so it's depends on the recommendation. So for the voter eligibility it would just be adding 16 and 17 year olds.
>> Um for the council we proposed 18 uh 14 to 22 year olds. >> Okay. >> Um and the rationale there was to one not limit it only to public school students. So that was part of it. that we wanted to engage any young resident
in the town and we know some go to school in private schools but they're still residents of this town. Um and then we also were noting that there's lack of um engagement at that young voting age too. >> Um there are details that need to be worked out in terms of how you facilitate that and how you recruit
those young people but that was our recommendation. >> Okay. And then for the recommendation number seven is youth following the same under our recommendation five. It's like 14 to 22 year olds to do this or it really depends on how you want to frame it. >> I am not seeing that in my notes. Okay.
>> So I can get back to you. >> Yeah, no problem. Thank you. >> Or it might be in the fuller report. >> Okay. So the last set of recommendations have to do with addressing barriers to voting and participation in town government. Um so we know from the survey and other research residents may
not be able to vote or engage in government due to work schedules or the need to care for kids. Uh data show lower participation in elections held in April as I said earlier. Um and on the survey some voters indicated barriers like lack of child care, conflicting
work schedules, lack of issues information on issues or candidates. So one idea is to offer um child care at town meeting through paid high school students. We found an example from Littleton, Mass where people can enroll in advance and we discussed that it doesn't have to just be for town meeting
members, but if other residents want to come to town meeting and participate and observe the government process, um that would be a way to encourage engagement. Um the next one is to expand voting hours to include one weekend day or for
early voting. Um you know, if it's only on the weekdays for early v voting for local elections, that might be a barrier to people. And then finally, we included a recommendation on moving town elections day to November given the high turnout um in November. There are other
towns that have done this. There are 55 cities and towns in Massachusetts that hold bienial municipal elections um in November on each oddnumbered year and other towns hold the elections every spring like we do. Um there was some
discussion about this because I think in other states they're actually still every year. Um, and so that would be a challenge if you're if you're having an election every other year. There are clearly some maybe downsides there. So that would be an issue that would need to be explored. Okay. So I'll I'll turn
it back to Marta. >> I'm not going to go through these, but these are items that we considered and did not approve. >> Uh, in closing, um, the committee's goal was to identify practical steps that can increase participation in SSCO's elections. We hope these recommendations
make um can help make local voting more accessible uh visible and engaging for our residents. We would be happy to come back like Shane just said um and answer any more questions that the select board has at future meetings if necessary. Um thank you for the opportunity to present our findings and we welcome your
questions if you have any. >> Thank you. >> A lot to digest here. Are they in any order of priority from your perspective? >> I know they're grouped more by the issue they're trying to address.
>> So that's kind of how we organized it and we did not vote to prioritize them. >> So Shane, Marta, the committee, thank you so much for all of your hard work. Um I've been looking forward to uh to having this conversation with you and seeing the uh the findings in the
report. Um it's really no surprise to me that the general elections in November every four years would have the highest voter turnout. Um I'm curious any statistics on primary turnouts or guminatorial year um turnouts in in your
in your search. >> I believe I that may have been included in the research that we had but I don't have it off the top of my head. >> Yeah, >> we can um get that information. We can try to get the information if necessary. Okay. No. Excellent. And then, you know,
I know recommendation eight was offer child care at town meeting through paid high school students. I know this has been a request of a number of town meeting members. I know we have talked uh about this. I would love to see this implemented by May of 2026. Since this
doesn't require a home rule petition or really anything other than really just, you know, rolling up our sleeves and and just doing it uh and working with uh with the powers that be to make that happen. And I know there are so many uh young parents uh and families that can't
participate in town meeting um because of that childcare issue. Um one of my good friends has four children at home and has to pay hundreds of dollars to uh to to come to each night of town meeting and when that goes on three nights uh that's quite expensive. So I I I I
couldn't support recommendation eight uh enough. Um, and then, uh, I think that's I think that's really it. So, I'll look forward to that follow-up, uh, information. And thank you again. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Do you have any data on uh, what the participation rate ends up being with recommendation 10 with moving the election day to November? >> You mean on when when cities did that, how to increase their um, turnout?
We'll have to get back to you on that one. >> I mean, of all of these, I would think that whether or not people are fully informed about every single race, but I would think in one small step now has the ramifications, but you would get a massive increase in the number of people
participating just by doing that one thing, right? >> Yeah. I mean, there the one argument against this that came up in our uh discussion was would it crowd out local issues? um cuz that the you know the presidential race just sort of really
dominates. >> Um but I think you just would have to weigh that with the fact that you would get so many more people to the polls. >> Did you want to add anything? >> Yeah, just if I could for those of you who don't know me clerk >> Patrick, would you mind passing over?
Would you mind passing down >> that way? Oh, here comes Joe. Sorry. Save the day. Thank you, Joe. I'll start over. For those of you who don't know me, Katie Dupont, town clerk, I started in January of this year. Um, speaking on elections in November, so
I'm not sure how much of the research, and I'm happy to converse with you guys about it, how much of that research went from municipalities going from annual town elections in the spring to November. A lot of cities have it in their charters already where it's worked
out with the byanual election. So it goes every year and it works out that their election is not on the same year as a state election. So if we were to do annual elections in November, we would be doing double elections on state years and presidential years. So just a note
on in November elections. >> Can you clarify that a little bit? Double elections, what do you mean? So if we were to have so this year if we don't do per se an annual election this April, we would be doing an annual election in November and we have a state election in November. So we would have
two different ballots. So we would have to change our bylaws to reflect which date in November we would want the election to be. Whether that's the first Tuesday in November, if that ends up being the same date as the primary, I mean as the general election
that the state sets, then it ends up being the same day. If not, we could be running an election one week and then an election the next week or the next week after that. >> Well, I think the whole point is to run it at the exact same time alignment. >> So all your resources, you only have it once a year from a cost perspective,
from a focus perspective, everything's happening just that one time. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That is the idea. It's just set by the state as well. So the state sets the state elections and the federal government sets the federal election dates. >> So it could be >> have to reflect to be in alignment with
the state or federal. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Katie, while you're here, um recommendation nine to include one weekend day. How feasible is that um for us in with this update? >> We we've done that. So that already is
one that we >> So in 2023, the town meeting passed the acceptance that Saturday is a legal holiday. So that's why historically it seems that we haven't had a weekend early voting day for local elections. >> So for the state election, we're
required by law to have the um Saturday early voting day. So we will in the fall have one in August and then two in October for the state election this year. But for local elections, I looked at the past early voting calendars and
there was not any Saturday early voting hours. >> Right. >> Okay. >> So, when did we have early voting hours on Saturdays? >> Well, it must have been for >> just during that and then the attendance on those the attendance at those meetings was pretty at those on those
days was pretty dismal, wasn't it? >> I'm not sure about the attendance on them, but um from my experience in other municipalities, it has been decent. People come passing by and they want to stop in. they see, you know, if we advertise it correctly, then people come in and they want to come in. >> Y >> that just seems to be an easier one of
the recommendations to implement. You know, why not, you know, why not do that? That's a recommendation. >> So, in order to to uh institute a regulation like that, we would have to change because we could not have Saturday be a
considered a holiday. Correct. for us to >> I would have to look into it how we would do it, but I called the state. Usually the last day to register to vote is a Saturday, but we >> changed accepting that Saturday as a legal holiday. Now it falls to the Friday prior. >> Okay.
>> So, I'd have to check on that. If that's something that we want to look into, then I certainly can look into it. >> Thank you. >> Into recommendation eight. I mean, that is something that we also could implement um relatively quickly and we could even try to utilize some of our National Honor Society students who are
often looking for community service hours. So, that is really I mean to David's point that is really a pressing one that we could we could do I think quite easily. So, >> as speaking from a as an NHS member um I would love that opportunity. >> Right. Great.
>> Yeah. Excellent. Um, so I will speak from personal experience that my husband is a town meeting member and I am here. So I have spent hundreds of dollars in child care on us getting to town meeting. And when it does go three nights and you can't find somebody, you're scrambling and
sometimes he can't show up to the third night because we don't have a babysitter for it. So um, it can be difficult. Um, and it's a privilege that we have to be able to do that and not everybody has that privilege. So, um I think it would also be great if we ran some sort of
small civic activity like we're at town meeting. They could have their own little town meeting or they could do something aligned in that way to understand like this is what makes Swampscott Swampscott like the fact that we have this form of government makes us
different from other places. So, um it would be great for them to understand that too. I think the majority of these recommendations really are easily implemented and they're they're great. I mean, from the very beginning, um, you know, using code red, right? That's
that's a fairly easy fix, no-brainer situation. But a lot of these really are ones, you know, they're great recommendations because they're ones we can implement. So, kudos to you for that. Thank you. >> Thank you. I'll just say that we kept identifying things that we knew would be ongoing issues. So that this idea of
having an a permanent kind of election committee that could continue to implement this work. We know that you know we are a volunteer-run town. The town the town the town of Swamcot has a full plate and so how could we use that committee to really support the
implementing these recommendations. >> Really great work. >> Great. >> So we don't have it on here to like a vote as part of this agenda item, right? Correct. thing. Um, >> so I guess because there is no language to vote tonight, what I would suggest is
that we could continue to discuss um we could put voting on a a next agenda if you if we wanted to, but I guess we should just be specific about what we want to vote on. Like are you voting to institute a town election committee? Are we voting to um So I guess that would be
the sort of direction we would go in. Could I just add if we were to do that, we could come back with the things that we can just do either administratively or make sure we're doing notifications or and sort of narrow what you all would need to vote on if it's directing Katie to
>> suggest changes to the charter, suggest changes to any bylaw that's been passed, but that way we can bifrocate the things that, like you all have said are sort of implementable now versus ones that require some effort either on the legal side or that we really think it requires you all to vote. I think Generally
speaking, we've understood the things that we can do. We should >> take and coordinate with you all to implement the best we can. >> Great. >> If that works for you as a group. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Absolutely. That works great. >> I see you have your hand up, but we are not taking comment during the agenda
items. Public comment is at the beginning of the meeting. And so I just want to say that because I I see you have your hand up. I'm sorry. Um, >> so I'd like to uh suggest um a future discussion and potential vote on
recommendation six and 10 about lowering the voting age and pen elections 16 because I think these are the two bigger ones that can move the needle in various ways and will require kind of a a robust discussion and some good preparation to
make sure we're fully prepared for a a discussion. Okay. >> Yeah, I I second that sentiment, Doug, because I think the it's the idea I think I vocalized originally that the idea of lowering the voting age to 16
did not offend my senses as it did many other people's senses. Then it needed a more robust conversation to understand sort of, you know, what other how it increased voter turnout for other um or how it how other towns viewed it to
possibly increase voter turnout. It's just making the population size bigger. It's not necessarily getting people to the polls. So, it has to be in conjunction with your other suggestions. That's why you have 10 recommendations here and not one. And so really, we we can't we shouldn't, in my opinion, do
that recommendation if we're not going to do any of these other ones because you're just creating a larger pool of people who potentially don't show up to the polls. Um, and I think that I would love to see some sort of dollar amount, fact patterns, understanding of what
would have to be done to move elections to November. I think we talked about that briefly when we, you know, sort of put you guys all together and um that it might be something that we wanted to explore. So, so we will look to do that then get this
on another agenda after we have some additional paperwork and documentation on specifically those two items. And then hopefully some of this can some of the things that we can just accomplish. Nick, you can bring up during um the town administrator's report that we're
moving towards. Great. >> In the meantime, recommendation eight. I'm happy to act as a point person or help um to get that off the ground so that we can actually make some headway towards that for the town meeting that's coming up. So happy to talk to you guys offline about that. >> That sounds great. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Danielle. >> Welcome. >> Okay. If there's nothing further, we will move on to um item number two, the historic commission. First is the discussion and possible vote on the Glover presentation effort preservation,
sorry, effort presentation. That's a tongue twister. >> Where is this? I'm uh Jonathan Leman, um precinct 6 town meeting member and vice chair of the historical commission. Uh the historical commission would like to
thank the select board for putting preservation of the Glover farmhouse on tonight's agenda. Before Nancy begins presenting our business plan, we wanted to be sure that everyone here is aware that we are not asking the town for
additional money for this project. Uh that's not why we're here. I want to talk a bit about our ongoing fundraising effort. We have been seeking donations at all levels, large and small.
Early on, we realized that we needed professional help for large donors. So, we brought someone else on to help raise those funds. For all donors, but especially large donors, the interest level is directly
correlated with support behind a project and the will to help make it succeed. We have made the contact with potential donors and large donor relationships in any organization take some cultivation which is why we have the professional
help. We are acutely aware that our ability to close the building up and make it presentable to adjacent prospective tenants is dependent on our success in fundraising. We have the support of national
development who met with the planning board recently to present their latest plan which includes preservation of the Glover farmhouse and we have the support of other agencies that we will talk about in just a bit.
Please think about the optics of your support for this project in terms of our fundraising efforts. A unanimous vote in support will go much further with a major donor than a split vote. We are
asking for your unanimous support so that we can continue with our fundraising efforts. We understand that this project will not go forward unless we can raise the necessary funds. With
that said, we want to present the business plan and answer your questions. Okay, thank you. Nancy Schultz, chair of the historical commission. Um, we are here, as Jonathan said, for multiple
reasons, but we think this is an ideal Rev 250 commemorative project for Swampscott to take on. Okay. Um, it's really for the town an opportunity
of a lifetime. We will never have another opportunity to claim a revolutionary war hero's home within our borders and the partnership with national development is a great
opportunity for us. Um, they have come a long way. We have worked really hard in many discussions with them to get to this point and I think it's it was personally thrilling for all of us and
for me and all of us to see the Glover farmhouse on a developer's plan as part of a proposed plan. Um so it's it's a great opportunity for the town. Um,
okay. So, I'll see if this works. >> Play it. >> Yes. >> Let me see. Let's see if it goes. >> Conversation about this house and how important it was to my understanding really wasn't a big part of the conversation. This is another way to
engage with our veterans to honor them. Um, not just Glover, but his entire regiment. One of the beautiful things about Glover is the regiment that he brought together was people of all different backgrounds. This is a national treasure that we need to engage and find a way to save.
>> Okay. >> Doug always says so um everything so much better than most people. So we wanted to include him here along with some images >> of other um
>> other media but that was aired widely on uh channel 5 TV. Um oops >> let me once was more than enough. >> Um we have many community advocates up
there. Um these are just some but we have broad interest from many and most recently a letter of support from Ken Burns of um the American Revolution filmmaker Ken Burns.
All right. So here is um part the plan. Um, National Development has proposed a public private partnership to restore the original 1700's residential core.
We would be removing nonsignificant 20th century additions and this building would be integrated into the residential development as a cultural and community centerpiece.
Um, in the plan, National Development has offered to lease the property to the town of Swamcott for 99 years at a dollar a year. Um, I have my checkbook with me, the Save the Glover checkbook. We are
prepared to write a check for $99 which would cover the ground re lease and give Swanscott the use of this property into the year 2025. Um
the that would be rentree. Um our fundraising branch Save the Glover Inc. will commit to funding $25,000 to cover the estimated operating costs for the first five years. And with
strong town support, we anticipate that we would boost our fundraising enough to be able to help endow the building even further into the future. um net profits from the lease can be
held for future building maintenance and um we'll go to the next slide that shows the numbers a little more. Okay, so this is some estimated operating
expenses for the town for a twostory 1,200 square foot building. Um, typically this is just some internet research. We're happy to go and do um additional research if it's needed, but
these are just the numbers. Um, between 1,900 and 3,400 a year for basic utilities. Um we we estimate that the annual cost to just keep the lights on and utilities
would be about $5,000 per year, which is why we're offering to endow the first 25,000 to cover those costs for five years. Um
I through rentals um Swampscott we think could recoup the $54,000 ARPA investment it made into this building by just doing a net profit of $5,400
a year. That seems like a very small profit to make. I think renting the building would produce more. Um, but I think the idea of getting back that ARPA investment of $54,000
to be able to um, you know, have access to that money is an important point. Um the other numbers are just, you know, our pledges, donations, and grants are currently
um over $500,000 that we've raised in a very short amount of time. And I guess the last thing I would say is you'll notice in here we haven't included the Community Preservation Act funds. That
is going to be a reliable source of funds going forward. one-third already allocated to preservation. We don't think we need those funds even to make this a viable proposal. Um
we we're pretty sure that um there would be good use available for that building. Oh, sorry. I changed it on mine and not yours. There we go. >> Could I ask a question about the last slide real quick? Oh, sure. If you don't mind. So the total pledges of donations
being over 500,000 does that include the 250 that's sec that's additional. So you have all >> No, it's No, it's all in it's included and we're over 500,000 including the 250 pledged by national development. >> Okay, thank you. Um, does anybody else
have a question about Okay. So, um, we think that this will help Swampscott in multiple ways, attracting heritage tourists. We don't currently have much
um to see in Swampscott relating to the American Revolution. We have the monuments, but this would definitely be a draw for tourists because we would anticipate that um we would have a small display on Glover.
Um and of course we know that talk about the reg um the revolution is going to be going on to 2033 because 1783 was when it actually ended. So this is not the only year we're going to be talking
about the revolution. Um and a living history laboratory desk laboratory destination for Swamp Scott and Salem schools. Um it would be open to the public. We
anticipate um we also anticipate that it would serve the 140 new residential units on site and the broader Venant Square area. We have thought and talked about the back L being a perfect place for meeting
space, maybe rentable for residents of the complex or for Swampscott, Marblehead and Salem. And certainly Glover's Marblehead Regiment has been looking for a place. They need a meeting
space for about four times a year. But we really think too that there'd be a lot of retail and commercial opportunities in the site. Gift shop, coffee shop, office space. All of this could be, you know, determined once the
building envelope is complete. The interior could be renovated to suit an interested client. And of course, just as you did with the Hawthorne, put out an RFP to get tenants, but we anticipate smaller a smaller shop of course or
office space could be reasonable uses. Okay, so here's the strategic timeline. October. Um we did issue the demolition delay. Um this winter we're doing aggressive
capital campaign and we did finalize um the fundraising GL uh branch as a 501c July 2026. target date to begin exterior renovation
coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the birth of the United States of America. Um we could have an opening event in Swampscott kind of kicking off the project. Um the
developer has said that they need 18 to 24 months to do the building. So we anticipate that the grand opening would be 2028 and then in the year 2032
we would have a grand celebration of the 300th anniversary of General Glover's birth year. So, um, we want to thank you for your your
giving us this time to present our business plan. And, um, John, did you want to add anything to that? >> Thank you very much. Um, we'd like to answer any questions you have, but right now our our this is
primarily about fundraising and particularly with major donors. So, um, we'd certainly like to take your questions. >> So, so you've hired a professional fundraiser to help you. What is the
projection in the ability to fund raise $1.5 million in not not that much time? >> Well, we are work we our goal is to raise a million by July
>> and you're on goal to do that you the professionals feel like >> we're working on it. We have we have a plan. We're talking to a lot of people and we hope that you know your support will assist us because the more support
we have from the town the more the better we'll do with our fundraising and that will allow us to create a larger endowment for the building. From the beginning when we wrote this um nearly 50page feasibility study on
how to make the Glover House self- sustaining from the beginning we have thought about this um idea to the house would only be successful if it can be self- sustaining. >> There are some commitments that have
been made but frankly it's not the Glover's not not unlike other major fundraisers. if the the potential donors sort of wait in the wings and they look at you know is there support for this and you know it's obviously very
important as I mentioned the optics of the select board support is important uh to me the the risk is low because if we can't raise the money this will not go forward we know that and and you know
that so we're we're asking for um your support so that we can uh work with our our major fundraiser. We do have some meetings coming up. Um and you know, we're going to give it everything we
can, but um they u you know, people people want to donate to something that's going to succeed, especially major donors. The um we're going after smaller donors as well, but they're not as concerned about that sort of thing. Some are, some are not. Can you I just
have a How much So, we're talking you need $2 million just to do the exterior. >> No. >> How much do you need to do the exterior? >> Well, it would be very helpful if the if the town could assist us and the developer could assist us with getting
into the building to get an accurate estimate. We have been asking and working toward this since October and we have not yet been allowed to bring a contractor in to look at it and say here's what it would cost
>> but we are not anticipating >> private property. I just want So what you're saying is you don't know what it's going to cost to do >> private property. So, we need we've had a forensic architect go in a several years ago to say that this can be saved, but in terms of the exact costs, we need
to get in there and we need permission from the owner. National Development is is helping us, but they don't have a say. It's up to the owner. >> Okay. So, and the town doesn't have a say either to be clear. The town's not barricading access. >> The town doesn't own it either. Right. Right. So, so back to my original
question, we don't know what it's going to cost to do the exterior. >> 2 million would be more than redoing the >> exter 2 million for the whole building. The building envelope, we've actually located some preservation contractors.
We have a list of them. Um, and they are very skilled at preservation and they have offered to work with us at far less than market rate. So, I'm thinking the exterior of the building would be
under a million, but we don't >> we're having a hard time >> getting it because we can't get an accurate estimate. >> National Development will do the demo around it. So, their plan is to demolish everything around the farmhouse. >> So, the bottom line is you don't know
what it's going to cost to do the exterior. You don't know what it's going to cost to do the interior. >> Less than our goal of of 2 million. >> We've been using the figure of 1.5 million, which is based on um our preservation architects guess
>> for the exterior. >> No, probably for the whole thing. They thought 1.5 million, but we we're aiming for two to make sure we have enough money and we do want to create this endowment for the building. >> I think I think we need to take a step back here for for a minute just to put
context on this. Right. So just in terms of exactly what your request is >> and what a vote of support means because there are different levels potentially to what that means and I think it would be there's different thresholds to get
people maybe to what support is >> um in terms of what we're actually committing the town to. Right? So the larger context, make sure everyone's on the same page, right? Is that this is connected to the planning process,
right? Um maybe everyone's fully aware of that on the board. >> I'm not. So I hope this is helpful for me. >> So um one level of support is that we're like rahrh this is a really nice idea. Go get
money, right? I would hope that that would be a pretty low threshold and maybe we could get everybody to say that would be great. Okay, that's that's one level of support, right?
The way you've laid this out is relatively I would say a minimal commitment from the town. Not no commitment, but relatively minimal commitment in terms of financially. We're in a very
tight financial situation. >> Exactly. >> Just to be clear, you guys have basically taken on all responsibility for paying the whopping $99, paying the operating costs, right? Um, for the five
years, estimated $5,000 a year, you would be responsible for the raising all the money for the outside and the inside, running it through Save the Glover, uh, figuring out really how you kind of do this kind of internal
operations. Basically, everything is save the Glover. Okay. >> So, >> can you clarify what we're operating though? Well, that's that we would be leasing it. The town would be leasing it to save the Glover. >> Yeah.
>> And they would be working through exactly what the mechanics are of these >> four primary uses. >> Okay. And then just maybe keep I have a couple follow-up questions to that, but maybe keep going
what you're what you're going first. >> So, to me, the only fly in the ointment is that the planning board at the same time national development is taking this to the planning board. Right.
>> Yeah. >> And so they are asking for an accommodation from the planning board in order to accommodate keeping the house here. >> Right. >> Correct. >> Which is the height variance. >> Which is the height variance on the back building primarily.
I'm getting at least a nod of ascent from the ch playing board chair. Yes. >> I'm not the >> No, he's behind behind behind you. We get to see both of you at the same time. So, um, so, >> so wait, can you just be clear so people understand? So, what National is saying,
hey, you can have this building, but we need to go up higher. >> We need to go one floor higher on the back building in order to make take those units that we're losing where the house is going to hopefully stay. We're going to put them on the top of the back building. >> All right. So, we've there's a picture
here of just four stories. Is that is this originally a three-story building or >> No, it doesn't show the back building. >> So, the other building >> cut off. Yeah. >> And that's in Swampscott. >> The back building is in >> four stories are in Swamps. Yes.
>> One of their questions. >> So, so that is that is the that's the bet we're making here. whether or not it's the rahrah level of support. Well, maybe that doesn't really come with any strings attached. But if we were to, you
know, I don't I'm asking for you all to kind of define this a little bit more clearly so people know exactly what they're voting on. If we uh put our stamp of approval very firmly behind this with the caveats
that we don't know exactly how much not that you haven't tried. You've tried extremely hard and unfortunately the owner has not allowed us to get in there so that we can answer this damn question about excuse me how much it costs to fix it. Um but we know relatively speaking
how much it is. We know where you're at at 500,000. Um, we I I will vouch for the fact that like national development, other people who are interested in this type of thing are ready to write bigger checks in general. I don't have a list of them. I'm not pretending that, but
you know, there are people out there that love this stuff. Um, so um, so there is some risk there though, and that's where the the hitch comes. there's a risk that for whatever reason
you can't raise enough money to be able to fix the outside and we won't know that. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't know if you'll allow the planning board chair to comment on this, but we won't know that definitively
before the planning board has to opine on giving a potential variance for the height. >> Right? >> So, we're in a timing challenge. Is this fair? >> Yes. I mean, >> we've sat in meetings with the planning
board and with >> Nancy and uh Nick and and the way you're characterizing it is exactly correct, which is >> but for the Glover House being where it is now and not moving, we likely would not grant a varian a height variance.
The height variance is part and parcel with the saving of the house. So if they grant the variance in advance, which they will have to do because of a timing issue, and the funds we we don't come up with the funds for whatever reason through no fault of very diligent trying,
we can't take C's backseat like they still get the variance and the house could be torn down and they could still get the variance. >> So that is the risk. I think that's the gamble. >> Yeah. I mean just from just from my perspective I would be
>> I just Oh >> you want to start a comment? >> Ann is our treasurer. >> I'm the treasurer of the Save the Glover and we got our um from the 501c3. It's we've received it
from the IRS. So we are a taxdeductible organization. um in the bank right now is about $70,000 which I think like that should be at least a roof you know so that it doesn't dis degrade any further and when you
think about what national development is giving you it's absolutely remarkable they are giving you a corner lot in Vinnen Square and uh you know we've in here you saw pictures of a retail shop
in Marblehead where they sell, you know, deaf uh thin pillows and these wonderful things. So, it's a remarkable retail corner, but I also think the historic value of it is absolutely remarkable, too. It's going to be in brochures, so
when you come to the area, Marblehead, be sure to stop into this house. They're giving parking right in front of the building, right? So it's a remarkable uh location that they are offering to
you and ideally you know also the historic aspects of it are really what are very important >> Jonathan >> I'm sorry >> go ahead >> why don't they just keep it >> they are they are willing to partner with us because they realize that it's
of great historic value and they the parking space allocation they've allocated 10 spots in front of it. Um they we were very pleased with the meeting with the planning board last week. There was a lot of good discussion.
Uh a the planning the national development was very much open to the architect that sits on the planning board. I I thought it went very well. they're they're being a good partner and it's up to us to raise this huge amount
of money and we realize that it's all dependent on that u it can be done over time I mean with the building there it can be preserved and even if it doesn't open you know that the exterior gets done before the
apartments's open and then the time can be taken on the interior right >> no just just from my perspective I think you I think there's been an incredible amount of work, effort, and energy that's been put into this um from Nancy and John and and so many volunteers. So,
thank you uh for for coming and presenting uh this to us. You know, I I think without having national development in the picture, I think that your chances of success would have been very very uh minimal. But now with them
with their seed money $250,000, there's a viable path here. there's there's a realistic chance that this happens. There's the the chances are um the chances are very considerable that you'll be able to do this. Um so I've
I've supported this along the way. I've made sure that you know this board has made sure that we've supported you know ARPA and town grants uh to help to help with these efforts. Uh, you know, I think I think we should I think we as a board should sign off and should
continue to support these efforts uh and energies to see that to to see the Glover project through because I do believe that a 50- vote of the board today will result in additional donations will result in additional press will result in this coming to
fruition, making, you know, this dream a reality for uh for for residents and and you know what better time to do it than now. Um so thank you again just timing question uh when does the
planning board have to make this decision by? >> So national development um came for pre-application review to our meeting this month. Um they've indicated that they would need a couple of months to put together a final zoning package for us to review. At that point once they
final uh once they submit a site plan special permit application the site plan for uh planning board to review we'll have 90 days after we open the public hearing. So I would say June 90 days from the second Monday in June. Any extensions beyond that would have to
require their consent. Um Leot McCall was consenting to an additional two months to review their uh full application. But if they do not consent we're required to vote under state law. That's not under our account bylaw >> from June. So July >> 90 days from the second Well, yes. 90
days from when the public hearing opens it. Yes. >> Okay. >> And just from a to outline the zoning perspective in this our zoning ball that was adopted in 2022. The Glover family uh overlay district kept the height at 50 ft, but it did allow uh dimensional
relief to be granted by a vote of the planning board. So that is the essence of what this uh discrepancy I guess or what this conversation is about is the height uh variance that they're seeking or would potentially be seeking. >> And Ted, do we know what that what what the delta is that they're that they're
that they are seeking or and do you have an idea >> their preliminary package which is subject to change is about 54t to the midpoint of the roof close to 60 ft to the peak of the roof. >> Okay. Thank you. And the cap's 50 right now >> as written and approved by town meeting.
Yes. With the dimensional relief being potentially granted by the planning board. >> Would you say cap is 50 >> 50 >> right now? >> I mean go ahead. >> The timing as lays out would actually is more beneficial to you Nancy because uh
and your I mean I agree with David. There is an exorbitant amount of work and labor you all have put into trying to make this work and you have come before me the skeptic multiple times and asked what can I do to convince you that this is what we should be doing. I'm
still a little bit concerned about the business plan. I still don't know exactly what's going there and I don't know what's happening 5 years after you all are no longer endowing it. That's a real worry for me given our current financial situation. We are not great
landlords. We just were spoken to about at public comment about how terrible we are at being landlords. So I don't know how we are going to change our stripes for Glover. Not that that makes it any less valuable from your perspective or
other historic uh you know buff's perspectives. It is just I don't know that that is something smart for the town of Swampscott to take on to become a landlord in this situation. Um, and that is not to say that I don't value the property or any of the effort that
is happening, but I would say given the timeline as it lays out and the way that Doug laid out a low threshold to get to that first level of like if by July you could raise $2 million or however much you think
you're going to raise that aligns with the planning board's timeline. Yeah, go forth. I like we we can I don't know that that's a a vote that we actually have to take. We can all just resound and say I mean I know you want us to take a vote, but I don't really know what the language of that vote is
because I don't know that I'm willing to commit to anything other than the timing allows for this to happen. Yes, you should go forward and try to make it happen. It's a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion, but I have additional questions about what happens post
five years of endowment because I don't think the town can commit to taking on any additional costs related to this building in my opinion. >> Well, it will be generating it will be generating income. That's how we >> Yes. I guess every person hopes that the
investment property they buy stays an investment property forever and self- serves itself, but there's always a chance and we would be we would be responsible for that. So, God forbid something happened and it wasn't self-s serving and we the town is responsible
for it and so I I just think it's important to note 99 years is a long time and you know I just don't know if that's this is a vis you know a feasible situation for 99 years but I mean from a
timing perspective it sounds like absolutely go forth and >> do the very best you have been doing and will continue to do to get people from my seat to continue to support this building. I think we need to tweak the business model a little bit to better
understand what the town can do post five years of building because I I think the answer is nothing. So that's just my opinion. >> Yeah, I think I uh I would just add a couple caveats to what uh >> we always do.
Um, I don't I don't want to set uh I don't want to set a specific number because I don't think that's fair in terms of what needs to be raised by when, especially when we don't have the cooperation of the current owner. So, Nick, you were
going to be reaching out to the owner's lawyer again. Did we have any response? >> Not yet. >> Okay. So I I would say one thing that this board could vote on is to strongly strongly encourage the owner of the
Glover to allow them inside for three hours so that we can get an answer to what it will cost to rehab this so we do not sit here all wondering how much needs to be raised. Um, so I would ask
that we, you know, send that strong message to the owner as one part of a vote or sense of the board. A second is that we send a wholehearted support for your fundraising efforts.
um that we support that work that you're doing and that this is important to the town of Swampscott is the second prong of this and that not necessarily for public, you know, sharing, but um that we're in a we're on for them to think
public. Yeah. But the third prong is that we're challenging you to come back with this needs firmer clarity about what the business plan is of the site, right? So that we can ask you to not take on a five-year,
but why not take on a longer term responsibility for the site, right? Make that your responsibility. Now, I know you've had taken >> or find a partner >> or find a part whatever. Yeah. to say we will lease it for 10 years because we have this partner so we'll
keep control of it and this partner will operate it. >> Yeah. One one thought we have if we can raise enough to make it gorgeous we have to make it gorgeous outside so National Development can rent their apartments but if we can make it gorgeous inside they would benefit by using it as a
rental office or something and and of course we would want space as well. >> And I don't want you I don't want you to just I don't want I don't want you to like freelance here Jonathan. think that's probably >> Yeah. No, no, we I'm not free. >> There's a lot of different There's a lot of different options. >> Yeah. >> We want you to come back with one that really looks like a business plan. We
can talk with you offline or whatever cuz right now it still seems like a list of ideas, right? >> And not clearly a business plan. And I think that would give more confidence to all the board members that >> this really is you guys have gone a long way. This is a long way from where it
was even three months ago, six months ago. It's moving in a very positive direction from my perspective in terms of its firmness and its ability to actually deliver on the promise without a lot of responsibility for the town. But there still is these two friction
areas, right? Like can we count on this long term even if we get there? But first and foremost, you know, can we see the progress over the next three months going from 500? Can we have a target of getting to a million dollars? that that may not be definitively enough to do the
outside, but if you can see the bar moving about fundraising, I think that'll go a long way and I would hope that we would all be very supportive of those efforts and you coming back with more information as we go along.
>> One question I would just like to add, and I know we've talked about this, is what restrictions National Development envisions would be on this use. >> Totally. Because thinking about it as a 99-year lease and not a five or a 10 year, how do we get through the operating, we don't know what this board
or this community might want to do with it in the future. If they think it's solely going to be a place that is for, you know, >> field trips and museums and maybe their rental, you know, they use they use a piece of it, that's wonderful. But >> I don't want to foreclose on potential
future opportunities for the community without going into it eyes wide open knowing that they don't want this use or that use. they really want it to be historic or for their use or whatever. I just want to understand what restrictions they may be considering in any 99-year lease so we don't discover that at the end of the process that we
can informed at the beginning. >> Yeah. >> Right. Like if we wanted to have a restaurant, >> have they already voiced that? They they described that they they thought it would be for historic use basically when we started to ask around
this question and they they're they envisioned what you're describing which is a place to learn about General Glover and the community in the region and all I'm asking is that we have a very direct conversation about that so at the front end we know what we're getting into as opposed to a specific
anticipated use that they think that has not been communicated fully and directly. Yeah, I'm not sure that's a critical thing in the next few months. I mean, we got to they got to actually bring it to the planning board to, >> right? I would recommend that you all work out these provisions before or at the outset of them filing for a site
plan special permit so that our board is not left wondering what one hand is doing while the other hand is going through a chapter 42A regulatory process for zoning review. Um the other thing that I would highly recommend is um
you know the the planning board is the sole uh permit granting authority who can grant the site relief here. I will no longer be a member of the planning board by the time this hearing comes up. So um take my recommendation as just one member of the planning board who's on it for now. Um outlining all of these
different parameters are going to be important before the public hearing starts. Once the public hearing begins, whatever is in the site plan special permit that gets filed with the town clerk is what is going on in perpetuity attached to that deed. Nothing can be changed on that. So if the funds are not
raised by the time that that permit is given, that 60 whatever foot tall building is what is going to be there. If there's any changes to that, that is what is going to be there because it is signed and filed with a clerk and registered with the registry of deeds. So, we just I would recommend that you
all find comfort and clarity sooner rather than later. Um because once that special hearing opens or the public hearing opens, we're under we're under a clock of 90 days to get everything approved. >> Y >> and that's Juneish >> is >> whenever they decide to file, it's up to
the applicant's prerogative, but they've indicated >> uh a couple months from when they were with us uh last week. >> Okay. And hold on. So, and they're saying, so just so I have it right, if you don't raise the money,
then National is taking down the building. We we have, according to National Development, 24 months or so. They want the exterior envelope of the building restored before the rental
units open. So, they've given us a pretty good time right line. And you know with the people we have I think we are very close to having enough to do that to restore the building envelope.
So they they've given us 24 months. >> Yeah. I guess I am more comfortable granting my full swing of support at that lower threshold level, which is we need to come back before they file their
permit and have very close to what we're looking at from a funding situation because we are going to we cannot conditionally grant them the ability to have that height variance. It's can't be conditioned on us raising money in 24
months. It has to be we have to be comfortable and the planning board needs to know the direction of which the select board is comfortable in June really or sometime around then. So, while I totally understand that they are willing to give you more time and
that's great, I think for our comfort, we need we need it sooner >> and it's a little chicken and egg, right? So, I mean, you know, the only thing that makes sense right now is if the board is comfortable to give that full support to go and raise the money. Um, and that's what you're telling people because, you know, if you
actually raise the money, then it's going to be a reinforcing cycle, right? So, of confidence. If I could give you one last recommendation and then I'll hold the button and go back on mute. Um, I would set out a very strict process between now and the end of June so that
you all and your partners here with the historic commission and Save the Glover are working in tandem on a timeline that my board can rely on. Uh, because again, I don't want one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. And I think there could be some confusion if there's not a regimented process to have some of
these potential ground leases, whatever, worked out what our terms should be before that uh application is filed. >> So, are we saying that this is, and this could just be me, but this is clear as mud to me. Are we saying that there
needs to be x amount of dollars raised by June 30th or June 1st, whatever, in order for this to continue? Is that is that the intent that we're that we're that we're implementing here or are we just is this philosophical? Is there
some concrete number here that this group needs to raise in order to move forward with this project? >> Can I just >> We don't know. >> Uh interrupt for a second. I u N's pointed out our fundraiser major fundraiser Ron is actually on Zoom and
and he has his hand raised if if you'll recognize him. >> Sure. Yes, please. If you would mind unmuting him, Shannon. >> Hi everyone. Can everyone hear me? >> We certainly can. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I'm I'm so I'm so sorry that I'm down here visiting my 80-year-old
parents in sunny Florida. I apologize. I'm not up there in the cold weather. So, my apologies for that. But, so I uh have been working with this rag tag group of residents here in beautiful Swamp Scott for for quite some time now. And um I I I just want to to urge the
committee to do all uh and urge the board, excuse me, urge the select board to do all it can uh to support Save the Glover. Um I I I clearly just from this meeting um uh you know I I do understand and forgive just uh you know my
misunderstanding of all the government speak um but this is Swamcott's uh clearly we do not want to be part of the generation that takes this building down. This is this is Swamcott's Mount Vernon. This is Swam Scott's Monaceel. Uh this building in the 250th
anniversary of our country is something that needs to to stay. And how we do that um you know is is uh is is clearly up to up to all of us and uh how we move forward. But I must tell you this is something that has to stay. It just has
to um we do not want to be part of the generation where this where this uh go comes to pass because of height variance. Um I I must tell you and I do want to speak to the the fundraising. So, so just keep in mind there has been a lot of work as
a lot of people have mentioned, uh, lots of work of residents in the community to save this building. And I'm hoping that the leadership of the town and of the of the other towns as well can step up and and try to help this group of residents that are really really moving forward to
try to make all of this happen. Um, because as I said, it's going to be it's a diamond in that community. Um we have raised $500,000 um in pledges uh as as we mentioned the $250,000 in seed money from national
development um which took a long process with them to get on board. Um and uh you know in terms of $2 million in philanthropy, not really a whole heck of a lot of money to be honest with you. Um the timing of it though when you have a demolition date is something that that
uh is is really um you know uh that that can speak to donors. Um but it's but it's coming up and we're getting a little nervous and um you know uh I just want folks to understand um that we have put all of our energies to raise that
money to save the building when we've just gotten our 501c3 in December um with help uh from our congressman Seth Molton. Um you know so we it's it's been three months uh that we've been raising money um and we already have half a
million dollars. So I think that there are a number of things that we can do moving forward. Um you know but but what I what I you know the the one thing that I truly did want to mention is that if we could have support of folks what I do is I I used to be the director of
corporate relations for the American Red Cross closing million-dollar deals for from all kinds of folks C CEOs and seuite executives. There's a lot of individuals in Marblehead and Swamcot that could pay uh you know write one check right now. Um, but we have to have
the support of these towns um that are going to be able to back us and um without that I I I don't know because I've been reaching out to many folks outside of the town and um national um
some folks you may know and and uh you know it's it's sad that that one has to do that with such a specific important building um in your town. Um, I am confident that we will raise the 1.5 million. Again, that's not that's really
not a it's it's kind of a non-issue. The timing though uh and the demolition date is kind of an issue though. And that's that's really where I kind of um am a little frustrated with this process. And uh I just I just wanted to speak that
that a couple things and and and forgive me. I just wanted to speak that the money is not really that much of an issue. Uh it's something that we're going to get. It's something that we have to get. Um, and the folks that at Save the Glover are working very very hard along with me um, in legalizing
ourselves with the 501c3, writing grants, asking folks for money, moving and shaking. That that that's what we're doing. Okay. >> Um, you know, but but in addition to that, the one last thing that I will say, forgive me. Um, if you're asking us to figure out what's going to happen, we
have so many ideas in terms of content, in terms of all of that, but that takes an enormous amount of of of uh of of time and of energy and of of, you know, not just, you know, uh, what we're going to do for for content, just one thing,
but we you want you're you're asking us to to choose sort of a number of things to develop these partnerships in in three months. And to me, that is just that that's a really hard ask, particularly when we're just trying to raise money uh to save the building. And
that in itself um is a task um especially when everyone's down here in Florida. So um meaning the donors and um so I I just uh you know I I just want the the the board to think that we can uh support. Yes, please go ahead.
>> Absolutely. Thank you very much. Really really appreciate it. Um, so, uh, there we could go on with this, I'm sure, for a long time, but we do have a lot of other >> Thank you very much. Really, really appreciate it. Um, so
>> someone could go on mute. >> Okay, there we go. Um, we have a lot of other items on the agenda, so I want to just be cognizant of that. Um, so, uh, I I think unless people want to ask more
questions, I I put out, uh, kind of a three-prong, uh, approach here, uh, to giving support kind of conditionally in a way uh, for the next couple months. Um, I I don't think there's a specific number,
Danielle, we can actually tag to it. Um, but I think my my view is that we need to see significant progress. you know, if you come back here in three months, uh, to whoever's on the board at that point, um, with, you know, that you're at $550,000 from 500, that's going to
say something, right? If you're at 750, that's going to say something else. Um, I don't personally say I don't personally think it's necessary to know definitively how much it's going to cost and definitively have raised all that money, you know, at that moment in time. I think you need to show clear progress,
knowing more clearly what it's going to cost, as much as you can determine that if you get access, and showing clear progress in raising funds, um, and having a better sense, maybe you don't have every single thing locked down forever. But I would think the more you know about what's going to happen inside, the better it's going to be for
actually raising money. >> Um, so I think those go hand in hand. And it doesn't, you know, frankly mean that you're going to be committed to exactly that use forever, but I think having a clearer concept of exactly what you're going to do will be helpful and coming back here in two months. But for now, it's a two-month basically letter
of support, vote of support to say go get them. >> I really don't understand. I'm sorry. I'm just really not clear what what is it that we're supporting like >> supporting? Yeah, of course. Yeah. >> So, you're saying, are we in support of
them raising money and trying to make this work? I think I don't think there's anybody's going to argue that. But anything further than that, we don't have any other information as to what kind of a true liability will this be on
the town between now and 99 years. So, I think we need to >> Right. That's the lower threshold. I don't think the vote of the >> the lower threshold. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I don't I don't want to go backwards because I think we are moving in a good direction, but
I just think it would be tonedeaf to not to not talk about the issue, the financial issues we're having as a town in light of this conversation. I think it has nothing to do with the historic significance of this building. It has
nothing to do with all the hard work and energy that you all are putting in. It is literally that the town cannot afford a track for our track runners. And we are talking about potentially 20 $20,000 a year for the next 900 uh 94
years to subsidize a building that will become a museum. And I I'm not trying no hold on because they're going to subsidize the first five years. So it would be f sorry $5,000 for the next 94 years potentially if that's what it is. We hope it's self- sustaining. We hope
all these things, but I think like I am absolutely low threshold, hard stamping. Yes, please go forward and try to get to as close as possible to your $2 million goal so that we could feel really great about this being the diamond of swamps,
but I also like we're not some we have a lot of problems on the table and we're not able to have diamonds sometimes. We we're able to just make the things that we have work right now. And I feel like based on the conversation that the the
direction that the fundraiser was going, I just feel like it would be I I can't not talk about that and establish that because we have a lot of other issues that are very expensive. We have a middle school that's falling apart. We have a lot of other things that are going on here that are not school related to subsidize our own
government. And I just want to be thoughtful. It is important to me that we do have a solid plan going forward that you're showing us how this will become self- sustaining so that it will not cost future taxpayers funds. That is important to me. So whether that's
important to the other four members of the board, that's fine. But when you come back in two months, that is what I will be looking for to see to get to that next threshold. >> So moved. second.
>> So I guess do I we can take a vote, right? So >> yeah, so I guess the the vote is to support you going forth and continuing your fundraising efforts with the full backing of the board and coming back to us sometime in late May, >> okay, >> to establish where we're at and to work
in conjunction with the planning board, ourselves, and you guys to make sure that we have a solid timeline so that the planning board knows where it's going and what it's doing. >> Yes. Okay. >> Thank you very >> I move that. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, let's take a vote. All in favor? >> I'll second. >> Yeah. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I >> I quite honestly don't know what I'm voting for, but I'm going to say I asked for I don't >> We got there. >> I really don't. But >> All right. The next item is the discussion and possible vote on the 12-month demo delay. >> No.
>> Yes. What's on here? The historical commission had a meeting yesterday with town council where we discussed the revisions of the bylaws. And just so you'll be aware um we we will go back to the historical commission and actually
it was I I'm misspeaking it was um myself and and um just a couple of us and and so we're going to have our meeting in April where it will go back again. Um but um where your question was
about the 12-month demolition delay, um she she had not commented on that because there were no issues for outside council on the 12-month demo delay. So I wanted to um just mention that that it it's been run by the historical
commission. It will be again. Um but outside council um felt that it was pretty standard and and um that's that's why it's it's um >> Jonathan, I'm sorry. I have no idea what we're talking about. Is this something
or not? >> Well, it's on the agenda. >> You were asked to put it on Yeah. >> Are you asking us simply if we don't need to talk about it? Let's just >> let's talk about it. >> If he's talking if you're talking illegal, let's can we just get this? She >> wait Nick please.
>> So the idea with having this discussion tonight is that we had folks here from the historical commission. They have had conversations to make sure it is anticipated as a potential um article for the town meeting warrant. So rather than rushing through all of these at the
end the idea was because they have had a conversation with Robin I think it was right >> uh who does land use for us. Um we wanted >> I'm sorry to interrupt. This is not just about the Glover. This is in general demolition separate separate and apart from the Glover. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Andre and our plan. >> What is the current demo delay? >> 9 months. >> The current demo delay is nine months. >> Is nine months 12. >> So this would be extending it an additional >> three months. >> Three months. >> Three months. And it would be a bylaw for the town. >> Correct. Among other changes. and and
what uh after the meeting with the historical commission in April, uh you would receive a redline version along with a plain version for um that would be suitable for town meeting purposes. So I I believe the reason you brought it
up is because we we want it on the town meeting warrant and need to uh be sure that everything's tied up. So the discussion with uh outside council happened and our next step would be to go back to the historical commission to
the full commission to discuss all of her recommendations and and finalize it and get it um to you for the warrant. >> This was an opportunity for you all to be able to ask questions of them at this point. That that was ideally just to wrap finish up the description of why we
had added it. We can do whatever you would like. The question I I have a The question I have is why do we need it? Why do we want to put something like this on the warrant? We have a 9-month demolition delay. Why? I mean, I I can tell you I I don't
really see any reason to put something on the warrant. So, I'm not I'm not sure what's what is an extra three months going to do. >> The it it's more than just that. The definitions have been cleaned up. Um we
um I know I've been on the historical commission for a number of years now um as as have others and um like any other set of bylaws they definitions need to be cleaned up. Um the demolition delay
is typically anywhere from 12 to 18 months and we're recommending 12. Um that standard is down. >> So ours has always been nine and now we're recommending 12. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Do do we know why it was nine or why it wasn't the standard or why >> it just is always >> Would the board allow me to speak? My name is Brad Graham. I I'm the secretary of the historical commission. U >> could you just grab N's microphone? >> Oh, thank you, Ted. Either works. Thank you.
>> Got to get me in stereo. Um I I respectfully suggest that this not be discussed at this point. The historical commission has not taken a final vote on the proposed language for the changes to the bylaw. Okay. >> So, I would suggest that uh the select board allow us to do that before
presenting it to you. >> Let's table it. >> Fair enough. Okay. Well, we can absolutely table it. I think >> hard. >> Uh when you come back to discuss this with us, it would be great to know answers like what benefit is it going to give you out from 9 to 12 months. I mean
me I feel like because it's on the agenda and we can talk about it um I would want to see some benefits that we are gaining not just definitional changes but an actual benefit to extending it because to me it feels like
I I don't see a benefit in it right now. So anyway >> absolutely >> great. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Moving on then uh to item number three. discussion and possible vote on the town action related to ICE and the federal uh immigration enforcement. Thank you,
chief, for joining us. >> So, if I could just before I turn it over to the chief, >> the policy has been revised through his continued efforts with both other chiefs in the state and with town council. Um I think what we plan is that the chief
can walk through the highlights. You all can ask questions and then we can also speak a little bit to the further discussion um that has been communicated in the past we might want to engage in about uh activities in town of federal agents. >> Sure. Maybe we could just give folks a
minute to leave so that we're not causing any commotion on the sides. That would be great. Okay, >> good evening. Uh, I'm usually counting she uh sheep in the next 30 minutes, so I will keep this brief for you.
So, I have been asked uh by the town administrator, by the select board, by yourselves to uh come up with a a policy for Swampscout Police Department involving federal immigration enforcement. To give a high level uh I I
understand that you already may have the draft policy. Uh it's about five pages long and I will give you a highle overview of the policy. Uh in summation, the policy emphasizes that civil immigration laws are the responsibility
of the federal government. Officers are prohibited from inquiring about any individual's immigration status. Now, this policy states that it does not preclude the Swampscott Police Department from working with federal
officials when it involves a criminal uh arrest warrants um or any issues involving national security. Also, in this in this uh policy, officers are prohibited from detaining individuals solely based
on civil immigration uh detainers. and that is aligned with our laws of the uh the Lond decision uh as outlined by the Supreme Judicial Court. As a general reminder, all law enforcement agencies
uh automatically share uh with federal agencies uh fingerprints. So when fingerprints are are taken with the 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States, that is automatically
shared with uh the Department of Justice as outlined by uh federal policy. In essence, this policy outlines procedures for our officers in handling ICE related calls, um any resident
inquiries and any afteraction reporting items uh as necess necessitated by yourself, the board, the town administrator, and myself. So, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have. Uh, Chief, um,
just a question. You know, one of the discussions that we had had at at our one of our previous meetings, they're all kind of blending together at this point, but uh, we had talked about um the, uh, you know, preventing uh, the assembly of ICE on town property, which
was discussed previously. I didn't see that mentioned in this in this particular policy. Is that going to be handled in a different manner or >> that is something that in speaking with um our legal counsel that is something that again unchartered territory right
now. Um I know that the governor has uh signed an executive order preventing ICE from entering stateowned facilities uh much like Boston has also done with with uh with their property. Um
what we have to be careful is of again state sovereignty and the laws that govern federal that govern immigration enforcement for the federal government and us not hindering impeding uh federal
officials. So that's always a tug-of-war battle that has not been tested yet in the courts in keeping up with immigration uh items. Uh, Senator Lindseay from, I believe, Louisiana,
uh, Lindsey Graham, I'm sorry, uh, just has a new legislation that would, uh, that the federal government would enforce that officers or local officials who hinder, impede, interfere, uh, and
do not fulfill ICE detainer requests should be held, uh, criminally liable. And that is currently in Congress right now. >> Yeah, that's that's outrageous. I mean, >> go ahead. >> It's ridiculous. I mean, and that I'm sorry, chief, but I mean, just because Lindsey Graham files a bill doesn't
necessarily mean that's what we shouldn't be responding to right now. Okay. So, that was not a in my perspective, that was not a great uh reference point for you. Um, >> I understand that, but I am telling you the tug of war and the balance. >> All of this feels like pretty watered down. Y
>> actually, I feel like you're being very tepid here. I think you're hiding behind like all of the possible infractions that could happen out there and that you're you haven't really taken the instruction from the board about what we actually asked you to look into, which
was not using town property for any as much as possible to not support these operations. And as far as I see here, all of this is basically like, yeah, we won't actively help, but
there's there's there you're saying this uncharted waters, but there are plenty of communities here in the state, including the state itself, that have taken more aggressive stands than what I see here, if I if I understand correctly. Could could I just comment very quickly? What
we had discussed previously and this is to I think partially addresses what you're saying. >> The policy that the chief has worked on is direction to the police department on how they should be interacting and it is in line with what other communities are doing on the police on police
enforcement side and police involvement in any type of immigration action. The the larger issue of using town property or entering town property, there are communities that have done it. They are primarily cities and it's been a decision of the chief executive of the
city, the individual saying I'm making this policy decision and this is what I how I would like to move forward. There are a handful of towns, Brooklyn among them that have also done it. So there it is primarily places where there's a single chief executive that's making that statement. The the direction and
the feedback that we've given to the chief I think he has followed exactly which was to make sure that the it is very clear for the police department how and what they should be doing. I just want to it's he's responding to my request and my understanding of these discussions. The idea of using town
property or prohibiting it is something that is potentially problematic because we do not know what the reaction to that will be. And I don't think that we would be fair to say that the chief is the one that should make that decision on whether or not we want to
risk that. If you think it's a risk or not, if you don't think it's a risk, that's understandable as well on how the federal government may react to communities that make those determinations on their own. We're not trying to say that we should not do that. But what we had asked the chief to do was work with KP to come up with something that is very clear and very
specific for the police department so that you and residents are comfortable and understand exactly what it is that they will and will not do. >> Okay. Well, I just let me let me say my frustration at you is you um Okay. Uh just to clarify um because I don't
believe that this was the question uh I from my perspective the chief has been saying the same thing about like what the law says in this case the Lun case and you know what they can't do or can't do that that that's
been repeated over and over again. I don't think that's so much what this board was asking for. >> This is a small portion of that. Right. This this was make sure there's a policy in place so that our officers know what they're supposed to do. Communicate that policy to the community. So the communic so the community knows what the officer
is supposed to do. But aside from that, what else can we do to limit the ability for ICE to come into our community and involve themselves in a manner that this
community wishes it not to be involved in. So that is that's the piece that you're talking about, Nick, and that's the frustration that Doug is, I think, communicating. And as the chief policy folks of the town, these five people
sitting in front of us, the ask is show us what other towns have done. Help us understand what the risks are and then let us make that decision, I guess. Is that fair? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> I will be clear. The risks are basically
unknown. And so I don't want to prolong the frustration. I I will happily compile circulate and we can discuss and but the risks are going to be that we don't know how they will react and so that it's >> that's a piece that will be missing when
I come back. >> Yeah. >> No, absolutely obvious. Yes. Yes. It's it's it will be a unccalculated risk because we don't know all the answers but obviously there are some >> theories of what the risks might be right like
>> its impact on federal funding. It's it's it's impacting federal funding is the number one risk, right? >> The most specific. Yes. >> But if any one of us can sit here and predict um what type of action uh would be taken by this federal government against any town, I mean, we'd we'd be
magicians, right? We have no idea, right? We we're tasked with balancing what's right um and protecting the people that live here and standing up for what is right and trying to also protect them from federal harm which
could be god knows what you you know but um it's it's a tricky situation and I appreciate your um really trying to make us aware of the risk and not put us in a vulnerable vulnerable position but at the same time it's one of those things
where it's either put up or shut up sometimes and you know we c we I think the majority of people in in our town um do not want to be put in a situation where they're not protected right and their their rights are trampled on even though it's happening you know
everywhere you look in this country sadly um you know we still at some point have to stand up for what's right so but I appreciate both of what you were trying to do too >> yeah I just think we we aren't going to know all the answers but let's talk about it uh more concretely to
understand what other town >> comparable towns, right? So, not not like Salem, not like Boston, not like Brooklyn, the big cities, but what are the smaller towns doing if anything >> and that I can say with relative confidence, towns are not taking an action in the same way that a Chelsea or
>> Sure. out of fear, I'm sure >> Austin or even a >> the governor can do. Yeah. And it is out of fear, but >> y >> I I only say that so that I don't further the frustration. I I we can definitely do the research, compile it. We'll do all of it and then you can determine what you think is the
community that's most like ours and the situation that we're in. I just want to make sure that you understand like I'm not going to be able to give you the rundown of here are the risks that people are weighing because it's really that unknown that I think we all know what it is in the back of our head, but I don't want to tell you it's one thing and find out >> it's something no one could have conceived.
>> Yeah. And I'm not so sure it's because they are a city. Uh, I think it's probably because they have very diverse populations. Sure. >> That they're protecting. So, I I'm not sure that their risks are, you know, Yeah. Do they have generally more financial wherewithal? Uh, but they
probably have a lot more federal funds at risk than we do, too. >> Sure. >> Um, so, you know, let's let's let's see some model uh >> comparable tones >> aggressive >> uh policies. Okay. >> I mean, for sure for sure KP already has this information because they've given
it out to other towns. So like let's just look at it. >> Shouldn't be reinventing the wheel here. It shouldn't be that >> difficult to do. >> Copy, >> right? Yeah. Exactly. >> To some, >> right? >> I just have we had situations with ICE in our community? >> Uh we've had probably three instances
where they were staging on uh on police department property and we confronted them asking them what they were doing, asked them to identify themselves. Uh and uh I know in one of the situations where I was involved in uh they were looking for somebody with a criminal
warrant. >> You know, even on that I just have to say, you know, a lot of this is pretext, you know. So like I I would really not just about using town property but even even this type of you know frankly half the time it's maybe probably more than
half the time it's just garbage you know that people are coming up with like you know old traffic infractions and stuff like that like just because they say it's a criminal thing. You know, I'd like to see what other towns are doing in or cities are doing in that regard, too, in terms of the level of
cooperation that's actually really necessary because they're they're abusing the power right now. >> I mean, is it standard like a judicial warrant or >> correct? When I say criminal, I don't mean it's just an immigration detainer, right? >> It is a criminal violation. >> There has to be a
>> So, they have federal authority to >> arrest anybody with a criminal violation. >> Yeah. Okay. >> You know, we I mean to the extent that we have to be sensitive to the to our residents, we also want to be sensitive to our police officers, too. And I I am
cautious about putting them in a situation that is going to bring them in a position of harm at all. Right. They live here, too, right? And they're the ones that are tasked with being that middleman go between, right? So, I think there are a lot of players here. It's not just as easy as um coming up with
something, you know? >> Yes. Um, so I'm sensitive to that piece. >> Thank you. And that was the idea behind having a policy that >> Yes. >> is reasonable, makes sense to them, what you would like, >> but gives them clear guidelines on how we want them and expect them to act and
also reflects the legal realities that they're operating within. >> Right. Correct. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, um, I guess the the on the agenda is potentially a vote on this. I think we should probably hold and review it, have
comments on it if there is, go through the town administrator on the policy. Um, I think there's one comment on here related uh that sort of came over. I don't know if it was resolved, but >> hopefully it will be resolved by the time we meet on it next >> and then we can take a vote on
instituting this as a town policy. Y >> um and that way our police officers will have a standard by which we all are behind so that they can operate um in this regard and then we will ask the town administrator to come back with that additional um ask
>> and uh yeah we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you chief. >> Thank you. >> Good night. >> I know lucky you. Um so now we're on to item number four, citizens petition warrant. Um,
>> this was at the request of the town clerk. It's just as part of the process that we go through in putting together the warrant, which it's not yet open, but these are the ones that had the requisite number of signatures so that it they will ultimately be on the warrant. We just wanted you all to be aware of them. >> Okay. >> Um, these are the citizenled petitions.
Um, there were three that were submitted. They all had enough signatures. >> So, do we need to do anything with these? >> So, we do not vote on citizen petition. We do not say we vote to even support when it comes in the warrant citizens petition. We typically do not. Sometimes >> you can if you would like to within the
law historically have we historically haven't I do there are there are two >> there's two things in here is one citizens petition that actually this request came in front of us in the fall and this is actually been brought to us from
oh I don't think it's a conservation commission but there's another >> which which one >> conservy the first I'm talking about the first one conservancy >> uh that prohibit the use of anti-coagulant rodicides of town property. That one I
actually would prefer not to see it in the citizens petition section, but in our regular warrant. That would be from the select board. That's something we've talked about as a select board for two years. It was our past town administrator was very >> I think positive.
>> Correct me if I'm wrong. Gino said we already follow this. This would just make it a >> I've actually talked to Deb about it. It's to make sure from her point of view that when it's not Gino and Max who have been great partners in doing this >> that we are >> bound to do it with future facilities
and DPW directors. >> So >> with the question that you're asking I can I can talk to both Katie and KP to see and if it's something that can she withdraw if we know that it's going on. I'll work out the details of how that would >> or I just want to see it in the regular
not in the citizens. But if it's a citizen's petition, isn't hasn't that train already left the station? >> That's what I wanted. That's what I was saying. I'll ask clarify, >> right? But a citizen petition can be withdrawn. >> If we commit to putting it in the warrant, then the citizen would withdraw their petition because it's already in
the warrant and then we would then we would take a stance on it. >> Uh, and we would review it like any other warrant article. >> Whereas right now, all you do is place it on the warrant. Got it. That time comes. >> I'd be fine with that. >> Yeah, I'd be fine with that also. And then the other one that I just have a
concern with is the third one which is the fire >> fire ban >> fire ban. Um and the only reason I'm bringing this up is this is a proposal from the board of health and I'm not commenting that I'm because I'm bringing
this up does not mean I'm in support of it. I'm just saying this is from the board of health and I just question whether or not it should be under citizen petition or if it should be in the normal warrant >> advanced. Well, it is citizens position, >> right? >> It I believe they put it forward as a
citizen petition because there was potentially disagreement when they were discussing it. >> No, when they were discussing >> Oh, when they were discussing it, >> uh I don't know that it was unanimous vote or not. I can run that down as well. So I think that you know this is
something that they did in order to make sure that it would make it onto the meeting warrant. >> It's it's put forward by citizens not by the they happen to be also the one that organized it is also the outgoing member of the board of health but he organized it as >> oh boy
>> resident. >> Okay. Well because the title here says board of health and do we need >> citizens propos it says it it yes it does. It is confusing and it it is also six families, 12 signatures, but from six families to control
5,000 families, 15,000 people. So, I think that's important. >> I mean, >> I just want to >> I just put up a citizens petition, you get enough signatures and the clerk certifies them, that's democracy. They're allowed to bring it forward. So I I understand the commentary and valid
point, but that's democracy and it's our job to ensure that democracy is saved on the go forward and this is their right to do this whether or not we vote to support it at town meeting only town meeting. Well, so but but what I'm going back to my question though is whether or not this should remain under the citizen
petition category which is at the end of the warrant or it should >> yes >> be moved further into >> I think the point is if you move it on the regular if you want to try to move it on the regular warrant then you are going to need the support of the majority of the board to support that
for it not for it to end up on the warrant in a supportive fashion I think the preference from the citizens are >> leave it as a citizens petition therefore the board will not opine on it and let them make their case at town meeting which they feel is a better avenue than coming before us where we
might say hey fires at Fisherman's Beach are a foundation block of what it means to grow up in Swamcott and therefore we are not going to prohibit fires from occurring outside. I think that is what they are hoping not to have to do and so that is why we're here.
>> It's just really hard. >> You got the inside. >> It's just really hard to do. I'm just I'm just putting all the logical blocks together. >> I just must say it's just really difficult to take to take this to take this seriously since it is not coming from the board of health, but it is coming from as a citizens petition. And
this is something that Mr. Block uh tried a decade ago. It failed. Residents do not want this. And since this is on our agenda, I do I do want to state that. Um, you know, I've received I've received numerous text messages, phone calls, uh, stop and chats about this
very item. Um, and no one other than the 12 petitioners, uh, seem to want this. Uh, so residents have have have denied this previously, and I I I think this will be um, >> okay, >> so be this will crash and burn, pun
intended, uh, at Mtown meeting. All right. So, we can leave as is. And we should say that this really isn't coming from the board of health, >> but for to leave it as is. >> Okay. I think we're burning a lot of time on this. >> Yep. >> Well, it's on the fire. This might be the only time for select board to have
opinions if they want to. >> I don't want it. That's my opinion. I'm against this one. >> Yep. >> Danielle, I think this is a big mistake. >> I'm just going with that. >> Okay. Saying it. >> Moving on. discussion and vote on alternates for water sewer
infrastructure advisory committee. >> Okay, more exciting. >> Yeah, let's just bring it up a notch. Um, >> the water and sewer infrastructure advisory committee gave a great presentation last meeting about shifting missions and understanding the direction
they wanted to go in. I think the board felt like it was a great presentation by Kelly and we wanted to, you know, support their alignment on the mission going forward. I think that multiple members of the board requested we have this conversation about alternates. I
committed to not have that conversation until the uh water sewer advisory committee could come and you know show us where they're going where their mission is headed and what they feel like they are responsible for on the go forward in alignment what what the board is asking them to do. So that is how we
ended up on having it on this agenda and not past agendas. Was there anyone here from water and sewer online or in person? >> I believe that the ones that were in person have departed because of the late hour. >> Okay.
>> So, >> so we have had a I have a spreadsheet that I can put up, but it's a list of the people I the last time we have an updated list from is mid February. I don't know if there are >> How many members do we have on the
board? the water sewer committee. >> We have four open alternates alternates opening. >> Four open alternates. >> All right. >> Okay. >> And I'd like to, you know, it is late. So, I would like to make a motion to put George Ellen Andrea Moore in the
alternate positions. They've applied. We've talked about it. This is going on and on. And then I'd like to, you know, get more names for the other two positions. The old Sorry, this is their old Excuse
me, Mariel. I'm sorry. This was the um >> presentation from last time. We don't have a list. We do not have a list. >> I have the list. I can put it up on the screen if you would like. The discussion has been so specific with >> the board members having a very strong idea of who they wanted. I was not sure
how to facilitate the best discussion this evening to be honest. >> No, typically we have a list of the candidates, right, and their resumes and stuff like that in advance. So I just >> Yeah. The request was to consider really by two select board members just to consider those two candidates as alternates. So you want to bring up the
list? >> Sure. Hold on one second. >> Let's bring up the list. >> Are those the only two people that have applied? >> No. No. >> Of course not. >> No. There have been many people that have applied and I am in favor of Mary Ellen's motion for these two people. And
I will tell you why. Um, Andrea Amore has done a heck of a lot of work. None of us can deny that. Um, obviously with Save King's Beach, but obviously wanting to have a seat on this particular committee because she felt she could help. So, it's unbeknownst to
me why we would not consider or at least interview somebody with that um significant a want, right? I think we're overlooking her. Perhaps for a number of reasons, maybe petty, maybe not. I have no idea. But I do think
she's a good fit. Um, and I do think the other gentleman who we are constantly hearing from, George Allen, right, with extensive and extensive background in this type of thing. >> Where's he on the list? >> He's not I don't know why he's not on the list, right? >> Yeah. This is the most recent list that
I have which again >> he he he just got on another committee. >> He is running for >> board of health. >> Board of health. Right. Right. >> So Mr. Allen I mean he has made numerous suggestions that Kelly told us last week are ones that they have adopted. He
clearly has a background here. We know that. Yes, there are many people that have applied. Um, but I think to overlook somebody just because of personality, petty differences, whatever you want to call it. Um, I I honestly don't know the the root story, but I agree that I do think these two people
should be appointed. >> Are you saying you seconded my motion? >> I am. Yes. >> She did second the motion. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, just before we take this vote, few things. Um, members of the select board continue to politicize the water sewer infrastructure advisory committee,
specifically Mary Ellen. Um, for the record, I continue to I I spoke to the chair after her presentation on our March 4th meeting. At this time, she and the committee are not requesting any alternates. The committee has also had no issues with obtaining a quorum for their regular meetings and they're
looking forward to finalizing a new sewer bylaw and furthermore conducting the business of the town. Last fall, all select board members to my knowledge had conversations with the chair of the water sewer infrastructure advisory committee, Kelly Began. Through myself
as the liaison, the chair wishes that individual select board members respect the autonomy and the independence of this advisory committee. In the last year, there were resignations from two members, including the former chair, Liz Smith, as well as the vice chair, Matt Peland, largely as a result of personal
attacks against them and the committee by one of the current applicants, Andrea Moore, as well as others. As for applicants, the chair and the committee have a full complement of full-time members and want to focus on the work of the committee, not on one or two applicants who have applied and were not
selected. The water sewer infrastructure advisory committee is not an appointment such as the recreation commission is. It requires technical expertise. Work here requires the ability to put personal preferences and bias aside be data
driven and balanced while working together with a variety of stakeholders to drive positive outcomes ultimately for the town of Swampskit and the region. There are some qualified individuals who have the potential to be considered in the future.
But this should be done at the direction of the chair and the committee, not because of political pressure applied by the select board to appoint a friend of several members to this most important committee against the wishes of the chair. You know, I did speak with the
chair. I I spoke with Miss Began last week. She did mention there were two individuals that she was that she was interested in. Uh Mr. Mahoney uh who does, I believe, uh marine testing. He would be uh an incredible asset to the committee. She has not spoken to him uh
as of as of yet. Um but that would be somebody that's on her short list. As well as Nick Camealingo. Nick Camealingo has uh an incredible knowledge of municipal infrastructure, water and sewer infrastructure that is uh you know that would match if not exceed that of
our DPW director. Um those are two individuals that uh you know that will be considered in the future. So again, I think we should I think we should not politicize this, which we have. Everybody's had the opportunity to talk
to the chair. Everybody understands the reasons. I'm explaining the reasons, and I think the select board needs to take its thumb off the scale and for the betterment of the town, allow the committee and the chair to do their job. >> Thanks. >> I would just like to ask if Andrea Moore was ever interviewed by the chair, by
Kelly Began. I don't I don't know. >> The answer is no because I've asked Kelly Began that question. So that is what is perplexing to me. Um I don't feel like there's an even playing field here and I feel like we are putting our thumb on the scale. Um, in fact, because
we, some of us have a perceived idea of Andrea Amore's personality, and I hate to actually talk about somebody specifically like that, but it has to happen. And it's about time it happened because we've been dancing around this issue for months now. Um, >> Danielle, do you know if she's
interviewed all those other people that have >> Um, I I don't I don't honestly know that, Doug. But I do know that she hasn't interviewed Andrea Moore, and that's who we're specifically that's who I'm specifically talking about today. >> Right. Well, I I think this is uh
really inappropriate that we're not following our process. Um so, you know, first of all, you know, in any other place, we would be following what the chair says. I I'm very open. I wasn't before, frankly, given everything that happened with Andrea, I'm happy to give
her another chance. But I'm definitely not going to vote for anybody right now without actually having had, first of all, the chair saying she doesn't need anybody. We can say, "Oh, you must choose two people." I suppose we could say that >> four people >> or four or whatever it is. >> There's four openings.
>> But we certainly I'm certainly not voting for it without, you know, any proposal from the committee. The name list seeming to be at odds with who's actually applying, who's even being nominated. I mean, this just doesn't seem like we're following our process.
>> So, I Yeah, there are I think there are a lot of inconsistencies here. And I I personally have heard that it is not the chair who is the one that is against this particular appointee. So I think there's a lot of clarity that we need and we need to have an open honest conversation about it instead of trying
to dance around it. Right. And I'd like to have Kelly Began here in front of us to explain exactly what her side is because I'm hearing many different stories about that. Right. So from him >> this is this is an advisory excuse me this is an advisory committee to the
select board. >> We have a motion on the table to add two more people as alternates. These people have been have sent in their information. They could have been interviewed or not whatever. We have two good candidates. We have a motion here
and I just would like to see two good volunteers on a committee. There's been there's more spaces if we want to add more people. Well, we can even add more alternates if we want to, but I I think this has got to stop. >> I don't know why we're trying to be exclusionary. I don't I don't understand it. >> I don't think we're trying to be
exclusionary. I think I think there is I think there is a pattern of behavior that has been that has been indicated. We have um we have >> that same pattern of behavior can be said for five out of the five members on this board right now, right? We've all done things that maybe have maybe four
out of five, Doug, not you. We've all maybe made a mistake. We've all maybe spoken out of turn. We've all maybe challenged authority. That doesn't mean that we get to be overlooked and black ballalled for everything we apply for in the future. Right. >> You're making assumptions, Danielle. >> No, not at all. Doug, I'm really not.
>> You are on this one. >> I don't I don't I don't think Danielle's making any assumptions for me. I mean, that's >> Well, I said four floor out of the takes. >> I think you're right on point >> and it should stop. And there's a motion on the floor. Maybe we should take a vote. Well, I haven't said anything
about this yet and I am not going to vote. So, I just will let you know that I'm abstaining from this vote because I don't think that this process has been followed. I am concerned that George Allen's name is not on that list because I wanted to support George tonight because >> I agree.
>> Kelly sat here and said what great work he had done and how the board aligned with so much of what he said and how he's bringing all this knowledge to the table. Right. >> Having h having heard her say that, have we had a conversation, David? Has a a conversation been had given where the conversation went on the
mission statement. Has a conversation been had on filling those seats based on the information that she gave before us? Because prior to that and what we all reached out what I reached out to Kelly was that there was just like we're not going to fill these seats. We're not even going to look at any of these people. And quite frankly, whether it's
Andrea or John Smith or Tina Thompson, it doesn't matter to me. It is there are four seats open. there are 20 people on a list who would like to participate. Why are we stopping them from participating? Because a chair has decided that they don't want to fill those four seats. Don't fill it with that person. Then come up with four
other people. If that's what the chair desires and then we can discuss four people based on that recommendation. And if we can't align on four people, maybe we can support the chair on some and we have reasons to support other people. But I don't think it's right to be
having this conversation in a vacuum and only filling filling two seats. I don't think that we have a good representation of what's on the list. And I have always been the largest proponent of supporting a chair. I am not on that border committee. Even as a liaison, you are
not a member of that border committee. You help and aid. You do the best you can. You bring forth issues to the select board. We have brought this issue to you, David, multiple times in hopes that you would go to the chair yourself. It doesn't appear that that happened. So multiple of us then went to the chair.
>> So I am not trying to circumn any process. I tried to work within the process and then when the process wasn't working then I went to a different process. So I I just want to make that clear that I didn't step out of toe. I came to you. I asked that we consider appointments for those positions. I even
believe that I said it doesn't have to be these people even if these people are the people who are supported by some of the people on the board. So what I am asking now is that we ask the water sewer commission to take a look at the available people for the four seats. Yep.
>> And that four recommendations come before us. That they interview, >> maybe not all of them because that's a big ask, but that they at least speak to the people that they currently hear us >> advocating for. Yep. >> And figure out if that fulfills a need
on the water sewer advisory committee. They are advisory to us and we are asking them to do this. >> You got it. >> Please let us go forth and do that. >> I will I will I will reach out to Kelly tomorrow and have that conversation with her. >> There's a vote on the floor if we wish. >> So I just I just want to I just I don't
know how to respectfully say I think this is just absurd and ridiculous. We've been talking about this for months and months and months. These people have applied. They've made it really clear that they want to participate in this on
this committee and now we're looking to delay it some more and we're looking to say can we go back and talk to the committee and ask them what they want. This is an advisory committee to the select board >> and nobody's reviewed and George and George Allen isn't on the list.
>> George Allen was on a list previously >> but he's not now. Well, so I don't know what's going on with the list now, but I've saw his name on a list previously and served it. So, we've all heard his name before. We we actually members didn't vote for him before. I mean, you
know, he's interested. You've seen his stuff and he's actually been here and now we're saying no. Now, let's go back. >> Maybe he's withdrawn it because now he's going after the board of health. I don't know. >> I think we need to have the chair here. I think we need to hear from the chair directly and hear exactly what her what
her what her reasoning is and whether or not he's still on the list. We need to get an accurate we need to check it and make sure that's accurate that those people are all the only ones that have applied and and start the process over and really get an understanding. Maybe there's something we're missing. Maybe there's something that you know I I
don't know. But you you know to your point, yes, I do think we need to hear from the chair. It is some that is who is in charge of this committee. But I do think there's been enough instances of questionable judgment, behavior, whatever you want to call it, that is
forcing us as a body to get involved in this thing, right? And and this is not news. We've had people come to public comment and speak on it, right? So, this is something that we have got to weigh in on in some way, shape, or form. And I think a conversation with the chair would maybe make it clearer. I don't know.
>> Um, I'm happy to do that. >> Robert's rules works. If I make another motion right now, how does that work? to I mean there's been a there's been >> there's been a a motion and a second. We >> have discussion and then we move to vote. You can you can amend do a
friendly amendment or motion to amend the >> vote that's on the table if you'd like to do that. But then that would have to be >> seconded voted on prior to voting on the motion >> the official the first >> initial motion. Hopefully that's right. Sorry, that's me.
>> Well, I mean, we can either have consensus to do the correct process so that we can come back here in two weeks. David talked to the chair, basically give a the consent of the board to or the the instruction of the board that we want candidates. We will we're taking
that decision out of her hands. We need candidates to fill these alternate spots. If that is the the the sense of the board, then we don't have to take a vote. Or I can make a motion to amend the prior motion to say that we want to
compel the chair of the water and sewer advisory committee to thoroughly review the candidates that have been presented and to come back with recommendations to fill the four alternate spots. So that's my amendment. And then what if
and then what if there are what if there are four individuals? What if what if we can't fill what if you can fill two or three or one? There's not >> looks like a list of 20 people. I think okay I'm just I'm asking the chair can the chair can decide to you know only come back.
>> Yeah two or three and then at that point we will have gone through the process fully evaluated gotten their their feedback and then we can decide whether or not we only take two three or make our own decision on >> recommendation for other people. >> Right. Okay. >> So, there's a um
>> that's my amendment to the motion. >> Okay. So, >> yes, unless we just all agree. >> No, we have a motion on the floor. So, we have to do something with this motion on the floor. >> Okay. So, I'm amending. >> Let's take a vote. >> Okay. You're amending your amendment.
>> I'll second your >> So, I think >> So, you have to act on this motion >> first. >> First. >> Yes. Because you're not amending >> You're not amending Barry Ellen's motion, right? You made a motion to amend Mary Ellen's motion. >> Okay, >> that that motion is seconded. >> Seconded. Yeah. >> Okay. So, all in favor of the friendly
amendment. >> I mean, it's not friendly, I guess, the amendment to the motion. >> What is the amendment again? basically to >> to change your >> toel but to to take the two next two weeks, not forever, the next two weeks,
>> run through the the correct process and have the chair come back with ideally four alternate recommendations >> for our next meeting. >> For our next meeting. >> Second. >> There's a second. All in favor of the amendment as Doug has presented?
>> I >> I. All opposed? >> Opposed? obstaining. >> Okay. So, the amendment passes and now all that does is flip the vote to say what Doug has said. Uh and the motion on
the table as seconded is now Doug's motion. So, unless there's further discussion, all in favor of Is that correct? >> That's correct. So, all in favor of Doug >> So, all in favor of Doug's amended motion. >> I >> I All opposed. >> Opposed. >> Opposed.
>> Okay. So it passes three to two and uh the request is that at the next meeting this beyond Nick please >> with what is typically provided which is everybody that has applied for the position the resumes of all those folks who have applied for the position if we could get that as soon as possible so we
can all look at it. Kelly has uh or if she'd like to appoint people from water sewer to meet and then have a conversation, it will need to be had prior to our next meeting, which is >> April 1st, >> right? >> April 1st is the first night, no, the 8th.
>> April 1st is the first night of Passover. So, our next meeting is actually going to be three weeks away in observation of Passover. She actually has till April 8th. >> Okay. and we can circulate the names that we have in the list along with their resumes this week as a single PDF
package to all five of you. Awesome. >> And then do you want to or do you want Shannon and I to get it to Kelly? >> I mean I just functionally doesn't matter, right? >> We can send it. >> Okay. >> I'll copy you and we'll send it. >> Yeah, please. >> Perfect. >> Great. >> Thank you. I think hopefully the chair
and the committee understand that this is something that is not going to go away and that we're going to continue down this path until these positions are filled. >> Understood. >> Thank you. Moving on to the budget. >> Hold on one second. So what we did I'm
just trying to share it. Give me a second. is we took your guidance to make cuts and lower the use of excess levy capacity um based on the proposals that we had previously.
Um so I will just jump right into it. The reductions from the proposal that we made a few weeks back are outlined at a very high level here. So we got the updated information from GIC. GIC provided their rates the day after we
all last met. Um we have taken a look at the rates for each of the indiv individual plans against our current census and that is roughly where we think the impact will be. The savings based on our original um estimate are approximately 365,000.
The piece that I will just highlight there is that open enrollment is April 1st. So, it could be that the portion of our census that has the most expensive plan that limited our overall savings, they might not they might not be interested in paying increased premiums
either. So, we'll have to see what the final um census looks like as we get to the end of May. But, this is sort of our best guess along with a contingency of approximately 3 and a half% to allow for changes throughout the year based on new employees coming on board, family changes, things like that. the sort of
qualifying events that could necessarily impact our overall budget. As I said, as we get through April, I will um you know to the May 1st, we will continue to update not only this number but the board on sort of where we stand and on where that all is. Um in addition to
that, I just wanted to highlight before I go further down, we have had a deeper discussion with the Hill Group, which is the outside consultant that we had um briefly spoken to before. We have a price now that Patrick and I are working on what the what buckets of money might be available because it would be this
current fiscal year that we would begin that engagement and it would be a 12-month engagement. They would, just to give you guys a rundown so we're all on the same page, they would be looking at our position with GIC. So, we would request all the information. they would look at it and sort of market our plan uh among insurers that we could use if
we were to leave GIC with the idea that we're completing that analysis in advance of the December 1st notification date that would allow us to leave next um at the end of the next fiscal year if it happens. They'd also work with us on the development of a bio program, support the staff and collective
bargaining ongoing analysis and then they support employees as well on benefit decisions um insurance and open enrollment. So in addition to that savings, we identified um both on the town side and the school side uh cuts that we, you know, think
are reasonable. Um they were not easy. Uh they were difficult adjustments both on the school side and on the town side. And that resulted in a savings of approximately 704,000 that I've outlined here. The the increase there that I want to call out that eats into some of the savings is that we got the Essex Tech
preliminary assessment number which was an increase above our the number we were carrying in the budget of $98,000. And then the two big outstanding pieces are the solid waste contract and open enrollment data. Uh both of which we hope will becoming more clear as we move
forward. Um, so you know, that was just something that I wanted to highlight where we were and what we were able to do over the last couple of weeks. And then this is the slide that I think Do you want to ask a question right there? Go ahead. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, just just for
clarity sake, I mean, we're looking at the GIC, the insurance savings. I mean, basically, we padded the budget and now we're just kind of taking some of that back. So, the difficult decisions that we that we made, uh, the difficult decisions that we made are just like I don't think we patted the budget. I think we were realistically and
conservatively estimating where we could land so that we weren't having this conversation in the opposite. >> We took the fat out of the budget because the GLP1s basically >> you're on fire. Very punny. Um so just a couple just a couple questions to that.
Um you know we're you know we're looking at we're looking at the uh the police and fire overtime lines. >> Yep. So now that we're more fully staffed than we have been in previous years. >> Yes. >> You know, it looks like we're only going back to really what our recommended
budget was for for for 2026. >> Yeah. So, is that a is there is there some reason that we're that we're only going to that number or is there further that we can go um there to realize to
realize savings considering that we're we now have an extra person or two or three that are going to be in that in in that department. So there so theoretically to me there should be greater overtime savings than that. So, we did cut what we had proposed back to
level level funding, which is the request of the board at our last meeting, just to identify why we landed at the the current the number that we're at on there. >> Yeah, I'm not >> I'm not sure the request was to get to level funding, >> especially about overtime. >> Okay.
>> The request was to rightsize it to the particular situation we're in right now about having basically fully staffed. Okay. That's a difference. That's a big That's a big potential difference. That's at least my recollection.
>> Well, and my actual request was to not add the increase. So, my request was to bring it back to what the original was, >> but which is still level fund. >> He had which was level funded. That was my request. >> Okay. >> But if you want to listen to Mary Ellen
and not me, that's >> I don't think I think more than just the two of you. Just as a just as a practical matter, if we >> said anything extra, >> if we were short four people and now we're short one or we have we're fully staffed, we should >> be able to spend less far less in
overtime. And that was the I I I agree with Doug. I thought that was what we were >> what we were striving for and what we were looking for. >> You wouldn't mind that. Would you, Marielle? >> If we could save more savings in overtime? >> Uh, no. No, I like savings in overtime, but I just also we have to be very
realistic only because last year you have to remember even though they were going over on overtime, they were also coming in well under on individual individual labor line items. So, you
know, I I'm really never in favor of just saying things willy-nilly financially. So, you know, I just didn't want to I did not want to see an addition >> on there, the additional 250. >> Well, I don't think we're saying anything willy-nilly. I think we were I
think we're literally looking at trying to trying to Yeah. determine, >> right, but I think what you're saying is bring the number down even lower. And I'm just saying I'm not sure about that because I I don't know how that number would affect >> their overall budget. That's why.
>> Yeah. Just to be clear, I'm not I'm not picking where it should go. I'm just saying that there should be a clear mathematical relationship between >> almost full staffing and what the overtime should be. It shouldn't just be that oh it used to be that budget. I'm
trying so to get a look at that. >> So the other thing though about it's not just staffing. >> Right. Exactly. >> It's not just staffing. It's also when you're out on extended >> medical leave or something like that which is not predictable. So as an example, you know, part of the
discussion with both police and fire in any contract is around sort of the paytime off and how we can use it and what. So there is a significant liability that the town carries based on the amount of uh time that is accured by the employees and public safety. Uh when
we talk about, you know, the straight time versus overtime, you know, at the fire station, for instance, our minimum staffing is seven. It's seven people to run two pieces of apparatus. >> So if one person's off, we don't necessarily go down to one apparatus and
say six people on that. >> We bring someone in. And so it's not just the staffing qu, it's the fact that we are on a razor's edge with staffing generally where we are just at minimums. >> So during the winter for fire as an example, we can have one off without bringing in someone that's not on
straight time. in the summer when one person goes off we because of the way that we're staffed and the apparatus that we run we immediately go into someone that's no longer on straight time. So, it's not it's not a one for one necessarily, but I did have discussions with both of them and I'd be
happy to, you know, actually have both chiefs come in to discuss this in more detail about, you know, what are things that we can do around staffing? Where are we in minimum manning versus what we need to run the apparatus on the fire side? on the police side, you know, what changes, if any, could be implemented
that would allow for again keeping someone on straight time being the one that's doing, you know, one of the four that are on duty in the station, three on the road. It it is a question that I engaged in like I talked to them on Thursday and Friday of the week that we
there are options that we can certainly explore, but I think they're, you know, in some cases things that we potentially could have to bargain. Um, >> and in other cases it may be opportunities that we just need to address what that would mean for service levels in town. So where we stopped for
now is you're not getting more. You should not anticipate that this is a blank check that you will get on um free cash at the end of every year >> and you will have to engage with Patrick, myself and whoever else we designate an ongoing basis to have actual discussions. And I know this was
discussed prior to the the sort of turnover at town hall to be managing to the number. And it's not that we run down all 400,000 if it's 400,000 in overtime before we have difficult discussions. It's that it's you know
>> for lack of a better it's one 12th every month and if we're if we've spent you know a quarter of it in two months that's a problem and we're going to run out. >> Yep. >> Um so it's an ongoing discussion. I asked for actual ideas that are implementable. I have a handful of them.
I do think that it's worthy of them being here to discuss them in greater detail with me. But where I did stop was to level fund it so that they know that there is a real ceiling on this. >> Uh and it will be something that their performance is measured against as managers that we really need to stay within the budget that we have because
everyone doesn't have that luxury to simply say I need to go into overtime because we have a lot of folks with vacation or whatever. We need to figure out what levers there are that we could pull. >> Yeah. And that just that just stood out to me as as as as a continuation of our contract or our conversation from from
our last uh meeting, our last discussion. Two other points. >> Before you move on, can we just give him clarity on whether we would like the chiefs to come back? >> Are you still on that topic or >> Oh, no. >> Not me. Do you mean would my my request still stands if it hasn't I'm not quite 100%
clear and I don't want you to have to kind of go through it again here but I understand you've had all these conversations it's definitely the budget they can't I get all that but have you actually
have they gone back with the constraints there are about two pieces of equipment or whatever like and requirements of contracts. What triggered me was you saying, "Well, we just went back to the old number, right? That that's not so I'm asking to
do more of a groundup analysis of with full staffing, what is the minimum number true projection for overtime?" >> Okay. Okay. >> Because you're saying, so you have to remember the police and fire are very
different on their overtime. And I think what you're saying is in 2021, it's like you're using analytical data from 2021 up until 2025. And even in 2021, we were still short. Um, we were significantly
short on the police department. >> 2021, we're still be honest with you, >> right? >> We're here in 2027. We know >> if it's not one for one, you want to know what it is, right? If I'm saying it's not for one for one, we need to come back and say that for every full-time we should be able to reduce by
X. So that it is a discussion around the data and the number, not my telling you it's not one for one or them saying that it's a difficult >> thing to balance. Is that accurate? >> Yeah. I mean I would like to know e like if there are plausible actionable savings from police
or fire for example for fire if there is something that can be actionable how much the savings would be how much we project the savings would be and what the risks are and then for us to have a conversation about it because it's great that we got to this point and this is
like not anything we should snuff our noses at We made serious reductions as we requested of you and we app I appreciate it, >> but if there's some place more we should be going, we should be exploring it. >> Okay. >> Please.
>> Yep. And then just two other two other points. Um we're just around the uh the DPW part-time staff >> which was you know which is being >> which is being cut by 15 grand. I think we saw last summer um you know we we
really could have used that part-time staff and those are those are very small dollars very incremental costs that really help to beautify you know our little seaside town and really make it pop uh in the summertime. Um I would advocate for fully funding that amount.
Uh and then I just had a question about um about the reduction for the 4th of July from the recreation department. Yep. >> So, we're cutting that $8,500, which I'm assuming is the is the contribute is a is a portion of the contribution for the
fireworks. >> So, how how would that be funded? >> So, my my goal in looking at this, and you're not the only person to ask, is we looked at expenses versus priorities? And so, for me, funding town operations
was a greater priority than town money going towards the fireworks. Okay. I am happy to at the direction of the board add that back in with the idea that over the longer term because I know folks in the rec commission are already talking about it that this become a privately
funded project and event similar to other communities on the Northshore so that we are not using general fund dollars for a fireworks display and there is a real commitment from community members to participate and take a level of ownership in it. Well, I
I I mean, I do believe that the recck department does fund raise, has a golf tournament, uh does a number of other things where they are where they are using, you know, dollars that they're that they're supplement that they're hustling for. >> And they are actually um there have been
some suggestions by the rec commission now >> um to utilize other avenues for fundraising. So, I think that might be kind of where Nick is going with. >> And and to in all fairness, David, I think it would be fine. It's when we're looking at the numbers we're talking
about, it's a not a hugely hugely hugely impactful number. I do think that this should start the conversation that this type of programming should be privately paid for. And I honestly am a little uncomfortable even with the rec commission being or the rec staff being the ones that are running a fundraiser
and sort of handling that whole interaction. I just I just want to I just want to make sure that residents of Swampskit aren't deprived of a of a fireworks display for $8,500. That's that's that's my Yeah, >> that's my concern. So, if if there are private
>> reductions is only $1,700. >> No, it's $8500. >> Oh, I'm sorry. The next one down >> that can't be funded through recreation. >> I mean, what does recreation's numbers look like? Can recreation just pick that up? So I think the way that >> well they they only would through the
revolving account and you wouldn't pay for it with the revolving account. >> Well I'm wondering can it be paid for through the revolving account? I know I you know we don't have the bottom line numbers out of the >> good question because I mean it really is is kind of an activity. So >> but I >> but they are looking at
>> could could I suggest >> Yeah. Go ahead. I've heard from multiple members that we add it back, lower this number for the the impact of the reductions, add it back for this year, and this be a long-term disc a longer term discussion about how to do it. I apologize. Go ahead.
>> Wait, that's >> so I did request that also. I said the same thing you did. >> What >> um why are we taking 8,500 from fireworks? That was and I am the rec leaison and I did pose the same question to the TA. um is this a number we could put back in for this year while we're
working out with the reccomission how fundraising is going to go long term so that we don't see this number again the following year right that it's no longer but for this year as we're at March right can we just go ahead and keep that 8500 in for this year and then let rec
commission take it over and fund raise for the whole portion that was my request >> well my what I just want to know is does recreation have it does recreation possibly have this in their revolving account I believe they do, but I don't know the parameters around whether or not they could use it. It sounds plausible to me
that you could use that the revol That's a question for Nick that you could use the revolving account. Patrick, I forgot you were here. Patrick, you >> if you know this answer, >> use it. >> Um, so I don't know the answer on that one. >> All righty. >> If we're going to use uh revolving funds
towards a fireworks display, I'd want to get an opinion on that. Yeah, that's so if it's a town if it's a town sponsored event, >> it's a it is a town sponsored recreation event. >> It's just not one we charge for. So I don't know if two things take away for
um >> us, right? >> Do you mind? >> No, Doug, I do mind. One second. Sorry, one second. I just want to I asked I have a question first and then I the rec commission is already working on a plan as Nick stated to set up a 501c3
that would be friends of swamps fireworks or something like that and they would fund raise all year long and it and they would be able to sell alcohol at parades and they wouldn't have to go through the yacht club and a whole bunch of other stuff that would allow them to make more money to be able
to more fund the fireworks and utilize the you know this thermometer temperature thing that we >> go through any of this >> y >> but what is this $8,500 going towards exactly are we literally writing a check to TNT inc and they're shutting off
fireworks or is this >> used for other things the city of >> Lynn the two primary expenses are TNT yeah and police details >> correct >> so it's you know what is going to what is >> right >> okay now I only ask because I know every other year Tedesco donates the golf in
order to have the fundraiser >> for to subsidize the fireworks and I didn't know if any of this $8,500 is used to pay for Tedesco. >> No. >> Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry, Doug. Now, go ahead. >> No, absolutely fine. Um, I was hoping
that the TA could go to the next slide so we understood the context because I think there's some other information there that we don't have. >> Are there any other question? No, I want to see the >> Okay. I just want since people were >> Yeah, but it's like the bottom line is we were starting. >> I know, but I was trying to get a
question like 45 follies ago. So, I wanted to ask that question. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. >> Thank you. So this slide is meant to show because we discussed this at the last one, the impact uh both on the levy or the excess levy
rather and the anticipated impact with the current um valuations of property and everything which will be subject to change over the next year. So it will likely be a little bit higher. Um, but this is meant to show where we anticipate the cost of this budget as
currently outlined, not including 15,000 back necess potentially for summer or the 8,500 for, you know, those are sort of on the margins. In addition, this number, I believe Patrick, you can correct me if I'm wrong, was uh calculated prior to my last discussion
with the superintendent where he sort of gave their best number so far on where they're able to get uh because they went from 3.96 to 3.25 on their increase. That was their sort of contribution to this. Um so again, that's just on
>> excuse me, >> that's not included. >> That is not included. The the from 35 to 3.2 25. >> So the quarter percentage point is not >> it's approximately $40,000 on the total, right? >> So the schools are able to return $40,000
in addition to what they've >> already >> What are the dollars? >> So I think on the town side it's 459 and the schools are 244 245 and then in addition to that it's the healthcare savings which is one of the
shared costs that we all have. That's how we get to the just over million. Then you put in the 98,000 increased assessment for >> okay but that number that's $12,311 >> to school >> is only missing 40,000 >> it's a negligible impact on the taxpayer
in this >> scenario >> okay >> and we were at >> 8 something >> 8 something right >> 875 >> was that what was that I think it was 849 they want to say >> but that included does this include um >> 849
>> this is just the cost of >> this include um CPA. >> No, no, this number is just the cost of the >> this number does not include CPA. The the 670 there >> and the 850 >> just an impact. This is just tax >> apples to apples >> and that was that's the asterisk on the
top two there. That's meant to identify the fact that there is the CPA that was added in in both years and will continue to be added. But I just want to highlight, okay, >> because it was something that was voted on and adopted by the community >> as we discussed it. So your reductions have resulted in $179
>> approximately >> roughly decrease on the impact of the taxpayer. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> And then the estimated excess levy of 1.9. I just want to highlight in that that 200,000 of that is the levy losing
um excluded debt. So it's it comes the levy comes down a little bit because it's $200,000 in a debt exclusion that is rolling off. So that's not that we're spending it, but it will disappear. So we want to make sure that it's sort of identified as no longer being available at the end
of this year with this revised proposal. Um, and that brings us and the same was true with the 2.8 200,000 of that was that debt exclusion that's rolling off that lowers our overall levy. >> So do we exclusion though, it's going to come off no matter what.
>> So Nick, I'm just saying from saying how much I'm just thinking. >> Sorry. Do we also have a do we also have a view of the next what the next five years looks like? What our what our excess levy capacity would you know will be >> how many years
>> how many years we have uh what's our runway >> I mean with the limited information that we have I would say next year is reasonably I'm reasonably confident we could get through beyond that it depends on when new growth and other things come online. Okay. So in talking to when we
we've talked a little bit and I know and I've not participated in as much but you all have talked about that there's a trough and there'll be new growth and so conversations we've had with Rich Marzy and Paul to try to understand what the impacts of that could be at the end of say five years >> right
>> including the WCO coming on is fully assessed we're talking about approximately a million dollars in new growth it's not going to be you know six million that will make sure that we avoid difficult decisions in the future. There's a it's a limited amount just
because we're relatively well built out. >> Um >> the million represents what was that? >> So that's like the Westcot which is now fully assessed. It had not yet been >> housing at Pine Street, housing at Vinnon, >> the retail at Vinnon where you know s
this is all art not science because we don't know the final value of these buildings. Um housing at Glover assuming something does move forward there. uh we had the you know sort of figuring out where the pilot is as it ramps up and then we do not have a number but there's
a placeholder in everyone's mind that depending on what the final development at Hawthorne in that property that would also be a new number as well that's a that's just not included in this idea that it's roughly a million um >> but all those other ones together >> so Westcot as an example it's one year
new growth of 240,000 approximately >> you know the units that are going in at Vinnon using the same math that we have at WCOT is $300,000 more. So we're at 550 to 600 there. Everything else is >> smaller >> smaller even even if something goes in
at Glover I believe it's 96 units >> our portion of Glover >> it's 96 units on our side at Glover so again it's a lower number than we have at WCOT >> again looking at it as an art it's not a science that we are 100% sure where things will be >> and the other thing I just want to
highlight because it was discussed and we're talking about when there might be new revenue or different revenue available is it would be my opinion that it is important we stay on track as best we can with the pension because when those when the funding level drops down to sort of the annual maintenance as
opposed to the catch-up that is a not insignificant number and that money some of it would need to go to OPED in my opinion it's the decision of you and obviously town meeting in the end because we've been avoiding funding OPE there'll be the maintenance number that still goes to the pension but it will be
multiple millions more most likely that we have now in operating that are available >> and when you say multiple Is the delta 3 million >> potentially >> potentially $3 million coming off a question though at the end of 2031. >> So I'm saying no it's at the end of
2031. I'm not saying that 3 million comes off. I think the last payment is seven >> I think it's seven or eight million and then it normalizes to I think 1.5 million in the current funding schedule. So that's a big delta. >> Yeah. Okay. So the delta is $6.5 million. >> So the big variable
>> I just want to highlight some of that necessarily will have to go to OPEL. Yeah, depending on what the state >> there is no statutory requirement with OPED yet. It will come at some point. So, we cannot be in a situation where we did 50,000 in 22 and didn't do anything again until 32,
>> right? >> You know, or if we or if that is the case, we do then it needs to be a significant number when we start to go, you know, low seven figures probably to start to catch up on OPED at that point. And that's what other communities are doing as they fully fund their pension as they then make a significant
investment in OPED but also have more money that is just freely more freely available to be used for other priorities within the operating budget of the community. So I would als I would consider that as you talk about the trough that we're coming out of as something that is almost new cash that
would be available uh for the operations of the community >> but not until 20312. >> But if we were to push it out then it pushes out that opportunity as well. So, I think we need to have a real clear picture of what it's going to look like in you have to I think you have to come back to us with a real clear picture of
what's going to look like over the next five, six years because we've got to do everything we can to stay away from an operational override. And it doesn't look like we're going to be able to do that. But we've got to we've got to at least consciously look and see what we can do because we have to keep in mind
when we go back to the taxpayer, we've got to be going back to get money for the middle school. And if we're going back for operational overrides, I feel that I feel pretty confident we're going to we're going to put that at risk. >> And that's that's a priority for me
sitting at this table is that middle school. >> It should be a priority for all of us as taxpayers, right? to to to be able to be able to have some semblance of confidence to to see how that how that all plays out because I agree with Marielle and we need to avoid that at
all costs. So if that means that we have to make difficult decisions today to avoid more draconian decisions that are going to be made years from now or next year. >> Yeah. >> Um we should just have that information in front of us understanding that what
you're going to show us are going to be very rough estimates. best case >> and very conservative >> and yes, I know you >> both joked about like healthcare. I don't think that we were wrong to have that where we were until we had more information as an example. We would
still be carrying 10 even if other communities might carry seven say because I'm not comfortable coming back to you next year and saying like everything looked fine but it was because I had a really optimistic number for healthcare and did not really look at it from the standpoint of like what the last three years have looked like,
you know. Um, so I'm I'm long-winded way of saying my projections will make it necessarily probably look worse than it will come out because my goal is to make sure we are planning for this worst case and walk into a scenario that's better than that and some of these decisions are a little easier in the future,
>> right? That's all well and good, but um if that leads us because there's an extra 200,000 whatever it is in health care and we want to get to a certain number and then we're starting to hear sitting here cutting other things >> um because
you've got 200,000 extra in healthcare. That's not good. Right. >> Right. So, you know, >> but you're asking me to be right within 200,000 three years out. >> No, I'm talking about this year. >> No. Yeah. No, I we are not we are not holding anything external. We think where we are is reasonable.
>> Okay. Okay. That's not what I thought I just heard you say. So I'm talking about >> years in the out years >> out years and a projection. I'm not going to tell you that. >> Okay. >> Um so I think this is a great question you asked David and you know I'm not sure we're going to have it.
I don't know where we're trying to head with this. I don't know what finance committee's done yet in terms of this budget and all that jazz. But if if you play that out that we've used 1.9 under this scenario, we've got 2.8 left in a very very
simplistic fashion. We're using another 1.9 next year. Been being very simplistic, I admit. Then to your point, maybe you make another year, you're not probably going to make it two years under that type of scenario. Maybe in a couple years you've
got another million. Maybe all these things if they all came in, maybe you make it through two more years or you're close this trajectory. >> 7 8 9 29, >> wouldn't I? >> Right.
>> FY29. Yeah. >> FY 29. >> Yeah. >> You got to get to 31. >> You got to get to 31. Right. Yeah. So you're not you're you're not kind of set up for a the right trajectory. >> So again I want to highlight what I said
last time. This is not something that is unique to us. >> Oh much better shape than I think I'm hearing everywhere else. >> I just want to under like the work that has been done over time puts us in a position >> absolutely >> everyone's been doing it last year this year maybe the year before last. it to
David's point it require the discussions around like where we can cut are very quickly coming to salary not expense and especially if we're looking at what we can do to try to stretch it out over years as opposed to making them incrementally one year at a time I don't want to necessarily speak for the
superintendent but I think it's similar on their side where over the years people have been very frugal and even this year they've really done a hard job of making sure that the number that we gave as projection was where they landed and then when we asked to partner with us to lower that number
they have worked hard to do that and I I it's not that we cannot do those things if we're talking salary but I do want to highlight and underline it's very quickly approaching that as opposed to can you guys keep trimming expenses here and there >> right >> to make the types of impacts that would be necessary to stretch it out multiple
years >> and this includes the Hawthorne lease that we're about to sign correct I'm assuming you have assumptions >> or income >> yes >> okay just Just wanted to make sure. >> Well, and even that we'd have a better sense because there is sort of a time limit on how long it should take, >> right, >> to come to an agreement. So, we would
know if that >> changes. 300's in here or not? >> I believe it is >> or 270, whatever we're down to now, Pat. >> It's 300 over the No, it's 300 over the >> over the 30 mill. It doesn't matter. It's in two different >> It's the total value of the agreement. So, it's two different fiscal years.
>> So, I need to come back to a question on the actual budget. All right. I've brought this up numerous times and I still have to ask the question with the schools in at the end of last year you finished with over $600,000 savings in
the budget. I think almost 665 or 675 98,000 was returned so that it would go back into the the um reserve account and 575,000 sit in a revolving account.
>> Oh, didn't that 98,000 fall to free cash? Won't it fall to free cash? >> It goes to free It goes to free cash and then it goes. It's not in a revolving account. You said >> no 98 goes into free cash and into the special education reserve fund. So it
goes it goes back in. So yeah that that's what we voted on at town meeting. It goes it go this is the channel. It goes into free cashed that other money that we >> going to give them. We
>> their return goes back to them for Okay. But yes, got it. >> 575,000 is moved over. >> It was saved 57 is saved in the budget in the 25 budget and then it's moved over into a revolving account >> in the hunt or
>> in the haunt they the hunt revolving account and I think that 575 should be going on this going on this budget and reducing this budget. >> Okay. So is there any >> so dispassionate can I just finish?
>> Is there any dispassionate way that we can walk through how that money was is that part of the budget for going forward for this year and therefore you needed less because that was used for this year's budget.
>> So I can tell you that >> one the nant payments come in installments. So at certain times, yes, it's high. In June, it's going to look different. A year from June, it's going to look very different because we're
using a lot of that money to reduce our ass this year. And that's what I can tell you. >> Can you just say that again so I can understand it? >> The payments come, I believe it's three times a year from the hunt. Okay. So depending on when you look, it could be
high and depending on what we've paid, it could be lower. So right now it's high. In June it's going to look different because that's when we have the payments to teacher salaries that come out of it for the summer. We've also used that money to reduce our
ask this year and we're in negotiations with negotiations with Hunt right now. So that's that's all I can really say about it. I mean, we were smart about who we hired. So,
for like we talked about earlier, I think it was in the fall that this number looks different for a lot of different reasons. We had people leave or retirements and then, you know, I feel like I made a decision to, you know, tell our principles to hire low
and somehow that's not maybe was the right thing. Um, but we for a multitude of reasons than the Hunt revolment account crew, which is not necessarily a bad thing, we're asking for way less now because we can
use that money. And again, that money is going to look different in June because that's when the payments go out and it's going to look a lot different a year from June because of where we are now. And we've reduced our ask from 396 which I will stand by that if you look around was a very reasonable
ask to 325 which to your point we're using this to get lower. So >> yeah. Okay. >> So in your nant when when we asked for report on what does the nant revolving count look like at the end of the year when it started in 2020 I think at the
end of the year it was zero. I think the following year I know Patrick can you pull up those numbers? I don't have that. >> You don't have that here because >> I think you're right. I think one year was zero, one year it was negative, one year was 200,000. I don't know what the number is that >> Yeah, I think this year it's 575 and
last year it was 135 and the year before it was 40 and those are all at the same time markers that I got from the town accountant. So >> I think it was I think you're right. you're I think one of the years a few of them there was in the 200,000s
>> and yeah it went up >> and for a multitude of reasons it went up we're using it to reduce our ask >> right >> that's >> I mean I think what you're asking is that it be reduced further because they had savings what they're saying is they've already utilized those savings in asking for the 3.25 25 for the
budget. Correct. >> Right. A lot of it. Yes. >> Yes. >> Wait. A lot of it or all of it? >> Oh, I know. >> Not all of it. That wouldn't be >> of course >> not the whole I'm sorry. All of the savings. Obviously, there's funding that's in there related to the the operations that are necessary and that's
always kept in there. Yep. >> Right. There's a reasonable amount that's kept in there. But as discussed, there was an >> additional amounts in there. >> Yes. >> And you those additional amounts to offset the ask for this year. >> Yes. So, you literally used it as a >> savings account.
>> Savings account to help you pay down the budget this year knowing that you might not be able to get the same dollar amount from us that you possibly could in other years. >> Correct. >> So, that's what occurred and that's what they did and that's that's why they can bring the budget down 3.25%. Because they saved last year and now
they're utilizing it. They're doing exactly what we're asking them to do. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> I'm good with that. Okay. I just want to see the numbers, that's all. >> Okay. Mhm. >> And like what I would like to do is be thoughtful about how we're talking about
this because I do think that there was a big ask from the superintendent and the schools to take another look at the budget and go down as far as they possibly could just like we were. And I think they committed to doing that. They've been great stewards of the ask.
And so I think we at some point do have to put this topic to bed. I think we can't keep circling back to it and saying, "Well, the ask needs to be greater because there was X versus Y." And so I think once we like once we have the numbers, maybe we can go forth and
do that because what I don't want to happen is to show up at town meeting and have this be another thing that comes up that we have to now relitigate on town meeting floor, which is one to happen in the past three or four years. >> I know obviously the five of us can't control that from happening. Anybody,
any town meeting member can bring it up, but we can do our best to get the information out to understand how the budget was realigned based on the fundings that were found in that account. >> Can you go back to the prior slide?
>> So, I hesitate to do this, but just for the sake of clarity, $700,000 reduction in spending. You said that was like 450 on the town side. >> 460 and 245. >> 245. So am I correct to assume then
based on this conversation that that 245 was the use of the NAT revolving fund what anticipated balance at that point or was that other substantive
you know >> cuts just trying to make sure I'm following the bouncing ball here. >> Does anyone know the answer to that question? Well, I think that's a question for superintendent. >> I'm sorry. I at first I didn't think you were I thought you were talking to Patrick, not me. I'm sorry. So, you said you want to know
>> anyone that'll >> Yeah. So, so we had in our ask we reallocated funds certainly like listen there are things that uh we are constantly looking at deficiencies. Okay. So, for example, um we were reducing
uh mechco bus. We reduced a swamp scot bus. We're reducing mechco bus. ELELLL students down throughout the Commonwealth and certainly are down in Swampscott. We reduced an ELLL teacher. So, we had reductions anyway. We reallocated some funds. We're things that we need. I mean, with this, you
know, we're not going to get the health teacher probably at the middle school that we've talked about for >> seven years. Like, there are things we're not want to make sure we're just being clear here about like >> what actually you had to cut in terms of getting here so everyone's just aware of
that. And so I I don't want to misunderstand or you know have any misunderstanding for anyone else. Is that >> the 225,000 >> 24 can't I remember that 45 >> was that like cutting out the health
teacher or was that using the nant >> both? It was a combination >> combination. So there were things like the that the health teacher or other things that actually had to happen to get >> at the 396. Yes. things change from 396 to 325, but I'm confident that we can
make it work and continue to produce a great product for the taxpayers in Swampscott and give the kids what they need >> at 3.25. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I think what does I know you feel probably halfway under attack, so I just >> No, I feel great.
But but I'm trying to give you an opportunity to say and what I want to make sure I understand is that >> you didn't cut things that maybe would be, you know, I mean ultimately that that would be horrifying to us. Like I
want to understand just like what the what the depth of that >> vast majority in some ways I'd be like thrilled if you just said hey the nant thing took care of all of it. I didn't have to you know but >> but but it took care of enough of it. >> Okay. And we're going to continue to be smart with our hiring practices and use
all of our resources to be making sure that like I said, we're getting everything that we need. Um but not everything that we want probably, >> right? >> And >> and they have a larger ask the next year, >> right?
>> Right. I mean, it it all comes back. So if we don't have that, it'll just be a larger ask. >> Right. And we also have a lower circuit breaker that we that we've been operating under, which is also not good good practice. It's not good fiscal practice, but we've kind of entered in
that. So, >> those are things to think about. >> And asking us what we we're going to cut right now or add in right now. That's not how the school budget operates. The student population is changing and the needs change every day. Mhm. >> The delta that we manage in special ed
is anywhere favorable 500,000 to negative 1 million every day >> in that that for that year. So it's a really hard question you're asking because we don't it changes student need
changes every day. Mhm. >> I I understand that, but I have to say that's that I've heard you say that before, Martha. It's a very frustrating answer because I understand it varies of course, but when you do budgets, you have to actually pick something, right? So,
>> we do it and I freeze it. We freeze it. So, when you say that it's it varies and you can't predict report out every single week to Cheryl, I swear I went up and down on it. We understand all that, but ultimately to actually go down in a number, I don't think, you know, you
just sit back there and say, "Oh, I'm picking 100,000 and I have no idea where I'm going to get it from." Right. >> Oh, no. We have circuit breaker for that. That's why you have that. >> But I'm not even talking about special education. So, >> you're talking about the gener the general education operating budget. That still changes, too.
>> Okay. >> But yes, we've picked a number and that's where we're going to land. But it's similar to like I guess snow, right? You don't know what the snow was going to be, >> but you still have to put a number down on the paper. >> Exactly. And we do that. And then, you know, for your options, you guys go back
similar. I was hearing maybe overtime for police that you go back into free cash to fill it. Well, we don't we can't we don't do that. >> Well, we're not doing that either anymore. So, >> but it sounds like that has been a practice, but we don't we don't do that on the school end. And but there is mandated services we have to give and we
have some revolving accounts and we have circuit breaker to help do that so that we're not firing a teacher mid year >> and or moving class sizes to 40. So >> I I guess that's what I would say about if that makes sense. But we are doing we do I know we have a whole bunch of
questions from fincom which we answered. >> Okay. >> And we do do the public you know where we do present the budget. all of us are there and I don't think anybody asked one question at it. Um I also do a presentation in May about the entire
special education budget and I don't see anyone there at it. So I guess I would want to say that there are times where we were there to really go as deep as you want into every detail you want but it doesn't really happen that way because now it's 10 o'clock and we came.
I wasn't even supposed to speak tonight, but when we were there, nobody did ask. And I guess we're really we're really skilled. We do know what we're doing. I would invite you all to be there to speak to us. >> I don't want people not to think that it's not transparent. It's transparent.
It's all over the Department of Ed website. Everything we do. >> Martha, we we we love what you're doing. I I I have no idea where this conversation's coming from. I I I wasn't even asking you a question. I'm I'm sorry. I'm sorry that you feel like you have to answer these questions because I wasn't even asking you a question. So,
>> well, I think it's just we're kind of a team like we work together. So, I guess >> all right. >> Let's just >> Okay. If we could, if you don't mind reading, >> if I could just ask for the purposes of this >> the two direct questions put back in the
8,500 seems to be the will of the board for this year >> and we can work with Wreck and others. Is that okay with everyone? I would I would prefer you go back and look and see if you could get the 8,500 out of the wreck revolving account. I don't I really don't want to add anything more into this budget. >> Well, that's a question for Patrick,
right? To see if >> he's going to get the information, >> right? So, he's going to take that away. >> My gut reaction that's probably not >> right >> not a good place to go for that. But I'll >> But why just help me understand why is recreation >> it's not a program that >> that they pay for >> generating program revenue.
>> You don't pay to go to the Fourth of July show. >> That's a general public similar, >> right? But we didn't pay to go to Easter Easter bunny hunt or whatever. >> We will this year. Well, I guess this year now you pay $5. My phone rang about that. Yeah. But um
>> but in the past we paid for Easter Bunny Hunt >> out of the revolving account. >> That's my gut reaction. I will >> we will look at that. Um I I would request if possible that we do get a vote from you to move this to fin
because fin has not started a detailed review it because they're waiting for a vote from you all be the charter requires you all to move it forward to fin >> which we whole budget or what do we >> they have not gone through this in a line by line manner because they are waiting for a vote from the select
board. We we had this discussion in the last two tincom that they would like it to move. >> Okay. >> And the charter does require that it moves from here to them. We can continue to make edits to it and we will continue to put it on the agenda with you all and we can provide any updates that may be.
>> So I guess the only Sorry to interrupt. >> No, go ahead. >> I'm sorry. >> It's fine. Go ahead. The only I guess we we could uh vote I would entertain a vote to move it forward to fin but I just would like to understand if it is to include the
8500 or not to include the 8500 I want to present >> probably include the 8500 and if we find out from Patrick that it can be used that we can use revolving we can take it out right but I think we should keep it in there for this year. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That would be my request. >> And the request would be even though
we're approving it to go to fin that we would still take a more deep dive into the overtime and the savings related to police and fire which you >> would allow them to begin their review individually by getting it to them and then we will absolutely have police and fire come on the 8th >> and then what about capital?
>> Well, that's the that's the next conversation. >> The capital number is in the budget. >> We can just as with other things it can still be adjusted. But are you asking us to vote up or down on this budget to just push it to pass
process wise? >> Yes. >> And then do we have do we have clarification from the board as to how we're going to handle part-time staff with the DPW the summer the summer help? >> I think he's asking you all, not me. >> I'm asking Yeah, I'm asking the board.
>> Oh, sorry. So, is that a number you want you're requesting? >> I was I was I was looking to I was looking to put back in the 15,360. No, it's 1,500. 15,000. >> 15,000. >> 15,000. >> No, I I think we're in a we're going to >> I think we need to get clarification from Gino of what that actually entails,
right? So we know what we're if we don't put that back in, what we're what we risk. Is that trash being picked up every day in the summer? Like what what is that? Is there something we can identify that that 15,000 affects? Right. I mean, I think that's a fair question. It was a cut that he
identified when we asked >> that he could he could live with that reduction. Correct. >> Which sometimes he does very generously, but I don't want it to be at a cost. >> A cut that he made last year, too. And you really could have >> Yeah. And then on top of that, he gave us 10,000 out of snow and ice, >> right? >> Well, that's not happening. >> Well, that's not happening this year,
but I'm just saying this is what Gino does, and he always does his very best to make it work. And I don't think anybody's noticed a difference between, you know, the the beautifification of Swampscott based on that $15,000. So I would venture to say, as much as I would
love to give it to him, that we that is not something we can do right now. So I would vote in favor of the $8500, but >> that that's fine. I'm not I'm not going to die on that help. So let's let's I'm I'm happy to make a motion with the 8500 to advance this to come. >> Second. Any further discussion?
>> Yeah. I just want to say that I am not satisfied with where we're at. So, in no way, shape, or form do I want my vote to move it along in the process to indicate that I'm feeling good about where we're at because I think we're at it still an unsustainable level. >> Yep. >> May I ask a question? >> Absolutely.
>> Where would you like us to be? >> Because we need a target. It can't >> Right. >> We We want to be responsive to the request. I'm not saying it to be smart. We want to be responsive to the request of the board. So, >> we need to have a target of where you would like us to go. Understood. But without seeing that without seeing those
next those next few years with that conservative projection, it's really difficult for us. It's really difficult for me, speaking for myself, to to look at this to look at this budget and say, "Well, I think we should, you know, we should dip a million dollars in or $800,000 in. We're just trying to
determine what this runway is, what the trajectory is so we can avoid that operational override, knowing when the grow when growth it as round of a number or as conservative of a figure as you'll you'll put on that what that looks like moving forward. Other otherwise, we're
just we're >> guessing >> we're guessing and we're shooting in the dark, >> however you want to call it. It's 10:05. Sorry. Um so I I I think we need that information to be able to to to get you a you know to to have to have a more
rifled approach to this for for me. >> Yeah, I agree. >> The takeaway is the five-year projection. >> Sure. >> Right. Those numbers will kind of direct how we direct you to look for more cuts if necessary or where >> or more revenue or identify when the revenue right or revenue assumptions.
>> Yeah. kind of give you that >> I mean in the end it's gonna it is literally just a point in time where we say I mean this is the tale is old as time we are we value the goods and services we have and our taxpayers value them so
much that they have to pay for them or the taxpayers have said we are not interested in paying anything additional therefore goods and services have to get cut. I mean those are the only two options. So at some point you're gonna have to say okay so we have a fiveyear runway hopefully. Hopefully right five
or six year runway and it looks like we can get maybe twoish years out of this and then we're looking at something else and that's when basically it's going to say like that's when we're going to start cutting goods and services or that's what like
>> if I could ask another way please >> the idea is to totally avoid >> over five years having ever going into >> the voters with an override. >> Correct. Which means at some point >> I don't know that that's not possible. >> It might be possible. >> Might be possible. >> It might be possible because we might
have to implement a trash fee at some point or 50% treasury. There might be things that we need to do. >> Um we just we have to look at it a little bit differently. Yeah. And if you get if if you know and this is easy to say, especially at this point, much
easier than it is to do, but if you get the base down 500,000 more, right? >> The multiplication on that over multiple years is very very significant. It's of course this year's base, >> this year's creates a base for next
year, right? So, um, and I think we'd be edging closer to what the historical increases have been in the average tax bill. Um, so we talk about the average tax bill and what the increases are. We've been buying down
the tax rate and we're spending onetime money on operating expenditures over time. If we're making transfers every year, that is an operating expense. We are not accur accurately budgeting for the expense that the town has incurred over the five-year look back that we
currently use. So, it's not it it's a little bit of a you know, like we're having this discussion saying we've kept the tax rate low, but we're not budgeting for what we actually spend. We're just hoping that there'll be free cash that can cover the things that we didn't budget for.
That's the rub that we have had a little bit of discussion about. like overtime was the perfect example. If we're using doing these transfers annually, then we should recognize it in the budget because that's what's really happening. That was how why we came to you with that. >> We took the direction, we took that out. We'll figure out what we do going
forward. When I ask for a goal and it you did give it to me at the end, like if we're saying we need to get through the next five years without ever considering an override, then to Mary Mary Ellen's point, you know, I almost said Maryanne, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Um it's too many Mary with
you know um it it is either revenue or cuts because what we tried to do with the level service was these are the things that the community have valued and used and access on a regular basis. >> Right. Right. >> Without trying to cut too close to the bone or anything.
>> Um because you know it's why people made the decision to live here or move here or stay here. Um, >> have you incorporated all of the proposed cuts you got from the different departments at this point or selectively a little bit? >> I would say there were a handful that
someone suggested that we thought was to the way you described Gino, someone trying to >> find >> make it work the right way, but when we actually look at like what they've been spending over the last five years and the, you know, year to date, like it didn't add up. So
>> you've taken anything you feel is reasonable from that offering but not >> right and we can definitely go back and say if we're talking about salary or if we're talking about programming that is an expense that we would cut the program that that was not the request of them. We said level service and >> right
>> I think the goal is 5% on you know whether it's expense or or salary to figure out what we could do because it's been multiple years of shaving closely on expenses already. But like let's also look at revenue as well. Um you know one of the one of the things I know there's
a 20 I believe 2018 parking study >> uh that was that was done in conjunction with the MAPC which talks about the need for the need for metered parking. Um that's one of the findings in that in that study. I, you know, I know we have,
you know, there's there's the potential to generate revenue by by charging for parking along along Humphrey Street. I think we should be I think we should be exploring that that option. >> Yeah. And the trash fee. >> Looking at that, we have your trash fee. >> Bring them up now. Let's get them on the
table so people can weigh back and forth like whether or not they want >> buildings. It's it's it's not something that you necessarily need to flip the switch tomorrow, but let's start having that conversation today in conjunction with this 5-year plan so that we're not flatfooted.
>> So, in in in six months or a year >> makes perfect sense. The distinction I'll make between those two sources, the fee and parking, we would not want to be balancing. The parking is it's onetime revenue because we don't know how often someone's going like that can change
significantly year to year based on what's going on in the economy or anywhere else. Whereas the fee is treated like a utility like you're paying >> quarterly a portion of whatever the fee is set at which would ultimately limit the subsidy that we currently give. >> We can also budget very we can also
budget that revenue item very conservatively. >> Right. Yeah. We have other things that go up and down, right? We have building permits that go up and down, >> right? Generally, communities would have like a revolving fund for parking revenue that would pay for something for the police department or something for enforcement or fleet or whatever and it
defer defay some other cost when it's available. That's all I'm saying. I wouldn't want to >> not trying to balance our budget with part. Right. >> Whereas a trash fee, I mean, we've talked about a little bit even in the solid waste discussions. That is a significant thing that limits the
subsidy and thus frees up general fund money to be spent on other priorities. Right. as an example. >> We talked about that. That's the only distinction I wanted to make >> two weeks ago even it just starting the conversation and it maybe even just opening the door to like okay so if the subsidy is X maybe we're only charging a
fee for part of that right now because we don't have to charge it for the whole amount but that allows us a little bit more wiggle room a couple years from now to say okay now we have to raise that because we don't have the ability to subsidize versus just coming out the gate and saying the fee is X because the
subsidy is what is X and you create no more the it's a onetime savings that you yes compounds over the years but you never get to dip back into that well. So you're to your point, Nick, for your direction um for the five-year projection, right, is to look at options
for increasing revenue versus >> focusing so closely. I mean, I think you're you said you're kind of close to as many cuts as you can make, right? At this point, >> we can still make cuts salary at that point, which is people versus programmatic or >> right >> expense that we can try to manage
differently. >> So that's the direction. >> The direction to me is both. with the idea that over 5 years what are the options that would allow you to get through to where we see this you know the full recognition of anticipated new growth >> potentially pension money coming off
>> longer >> pension is 2032 Patrick or 2031 >> 2032 is when we are in normal cost so we're paying like one that drops down to $1.5 million roughly on the current schedule >> so I know there were a couple
opportunities that were brought up a couple months ago about regionalization and I know there's some irons in the fire about that. So, if there's any way that any of that could be >> that's also >> potentially pushed to come to fruition given the current financial situation, I think that's that would be great also
because >> if there is a workaround where it's a cut to us and a cut to them, but then collaboratively it's a half savings like so that the service is still available to each town. That would be more ideal than a cut.
>> Doing more with more. >> Yeah. Just so we're clear about what direction you're taking for the budget to get us down to a different number. While we have the school department here, we realize they've gone from 3.96 to 3.25. Is part of this exercise asking them to
do anything else because if it's not, I want that I want that to be clear, too. And I I don't want to keep going back to considering how much of our budget the schools are, right? Let's be really transparent and honest. they've gone to where they said they could go to, right?
So, is this exercise also inclusive of that? >> I would ask for your direction in that because it is a that is a very difficult thing to do >> for this year. Maybe we can get there, but looking over a fiveyear,
>> it's the most significant is the fixed cost things that we're sharing or that are, you know, part of that top bucket. And then when it comes down the funnel to us, it's a, you know, whatever it is, >> 60 40 7030, I don't know the number off the top of my head, split.
>> We looking over a longer term need some greater direction or greater idea of how we, you know, sort of spread that pain >> for lack of a better phrase. >> Yeah. >> So, I don't know that we need that answer tonight necessarily. If you all
have a direction you would like to give, I'm sure that would be easier for Jason and I, but I don't want to put that on you as a snap of finger. I can certainly start looking at the revenue with the the eye that you all have described for us tonight. We can also look at other cuts, but also come to you to say to
really avoid it on the town side at least, we need to cut this much salary. And it's a number. It's not a person. It's not a department. It's just a either a percentage of total salary or a you know a gross dollar. >> That's the type of thing that we could come back to you with. I I don't know how far down that road we would want to
get with >> right >> forecasting for everyone what that would mean. >> Yeah. I mean I think the superintendent and Martha are here and they're hearing the exercise that we're going about on the town side. I think that they have
the school department has they and the school department have tried to do the same exercise on their side. I am obviously if another cut is found given what you hear us scrappling with tonight we will always take it. Am I going to ask you to go back and cut into bone? I
mean no I'm not going to ask you to do that but if we come back and say hey we have to make uh salary cuts then that maybe there will be an ask to say that we'd like that to be shared but right now we're not asking that. But I just think like
being realistic, Danielle, we want to be transparent and honest. Like >> if you're doing the same exercise we are, which I believe you are, then please look back and if there's anything else that you want to bring to the table, we are very open and willing to accept it. But >> right,
>> you know, I'm not going to ask them to pick apart a budget that they have much better insight in than I do. >> I completely agree. I don't know if anybody else has thoughts. >> No, I shared them.
>> No, it's just, you know, I'm just, you know, in my mind, my number one focus is staying away from requesting an override and keeping our eyes on what's going to be needed for the middle school. I mean, we
we go for an override, we're risking. It's a big risk. Yeah, >> true. And we and we definitely need to do something >> with the middle school. So, I'm glad to hear you say that to be honest >> because I, you know, I I sometimes don't know if it's, you know, if we all think
the same thing, but I I think it's pretty clear that something needs to happen. I mean, that's not a >> Well, I've been talking about the middle school since 2014, and I've put articles in the warrant, and it's just we we just can't take our eyes off of the middle school.
>> Well, we had to we had to do the elementary school first. I think that was the fire that was burning the brightest. >> I believe that we have moved very far away of a motion that Doug and David may be made involving moving this on to Fincom. Sorry to interrupt David, but I seconded something.
>> We go back to that motion so that Fincom can move along and Doug Opine that this doesn't mean he's satisfied. And I think we all align with that. >> Sorry, I derailed everything. >> Well, I think we all align with that sentiment and >> gave his motion. I separated on the table. >> So, let's um vote on that motion. All in
favor of moving the budget to fin. >> Amended. >> I I just want to be really clear. I am not satisfied with this budget either. >> All in favor of being unsatisfied with the budget but still moving it to fin. I I Okay. The eyes take it. Um we will move on to capital.
>> So capital improvement committee has rankordered things. They've not yet had a deeper discussion within. Can we push that to a future meeting? >> Yep. At 10. >> No. No. I definitely want to do it now. >> You bet we can. I just want to say >> I just want to say we need that track.
That's all I'm going to say. But I'll save it for the next time. >> I'll I'll second I'll second Danielle's comment. >> Okay, >> that's my only comment. >> I just have one question on the track. >> No, I have to ask this question to look into it. I mean, >> okay. You know, I am in favor of the
track, but I just want to make sure that we're really clear that there's we're that whatever the fix is is the fix that there's like is there a possibility that it's not a million? Is there a way to do it a little bit differently to expedite
a little bit? Can we cut sections of it? I said that too. >> Like one lane every year. >> No, no, no, no, no. I'm talking about full, you know, different. >> It's a replacement, is it? It is a full replacement. >> Full replacement, >> right? Is there something else? >> I'm saying, do you have to have a full
replacement or can we have a fix? >> As I believe it's presented, we have tried the patching. We have tried the short-term solution. >> They no longer make the material. That's the problem. >> There's no patch. >> They don't have the same material anymore. That is what I've been told. >> Fixes. >> But I asked.
>> Okay. Let's not make it worse by Frankensteining it. >> Okay. Okay. So, now we move to the consent agenda. Um, these are routine items that we can approve. Collect >> motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Take out You have to take out the minute the take out the minutes on the second
and the fourth. >> Oh, the second. >> No, I'm good with the >> the 27th. So, the consent agenda contains approval of the minutes for February 27th and discussion. Uh, the vote to approve the town election warrant for elections for April 28th, 2026.
All Oh, there was >> motion to approve. >> To approve a second All in favor? I I Okay. Select board. Um time. >> I want to thank Joe Doulette and David
Morinsky. Moritzky for um >> That's right. >> Moritzky. Yeah. >> Moritzky for bringing the meeting tonight. Um, I also want to thank Wayne Spritz, Kathy Milin, and Eric Schneider for their hard work in
putting together that RFP that has gone out for our new trash contract. That took a ton of work and it's um much appreciated. And that's it for me. Okay. Anyone else? Can I have a motion to adjurnn? So move. >> Motion second. All
>> in favor? I I Good Night everybody. >> Good night.