Are the boys ready? >> Everybody looks ready. >> Okay. Thank you very much for joining us on Wednesday, December 17th for the selective board meeting. We are being recorded and if you could rise for the >> We have binders today. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> We need some new. >> Okay. Um before we get started, I'll just pass the microphone over to David
just to say why we're in our festive holiday wear. >> No, we're in our festive holiday wear. We started this tradition uh back in uh in 2020 uh just in uh in in memory of uh of our former colleague and uh and friend uh Don Hos. Uh this was a this
was a holiday that was near and dear to him and he loved to uh to spread joy and loved to uh to make folks laugh. Uh so this is year six and hopefully uh year six of of you know to six more years of uh of making folks smile and bringing
people and bringing joy to uh to the faces of all those joining us uh online. So thank you. >> Thank you David. Diane would you mind muting um one of our participants? Um we will start with the recognition of
our retiring fire captain fire captain Joseph Kamala. Chief's here. >> There he is. >> We've started, Chief. So, we're ready for you if you are. Come on up. >> No, you're not. You didn't.
>> Hi. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Um, we're here to acknowledge uh Captain Joan Bali. Uh, he's uh retiring from the Swans Fire Department. Uh, you can see his his crew back there with him. Um, They're
they're they're quite emotional around the fire station these days about Joe leaving. Uh you know, we we miss everyone that we worked with for years when they move on, but this is this is a very special uh this is a very special loss for us and it's going to be it's going to be a very difficult one to
replace. Um I a few notes about Joe just briefly. Joe was raised in Swanscott and attended Swans schools. He was hired as a swanska firefighter on January 3rd, 1997. Prior to beginning his career in public safety, he spent many years working as a
commercial fisherman in Swampscott. Joe arrived with an unmatched knowledge uh around um of the waters around the area and a unique set of skills that I do not believe any of us fully appreciated when he was a new firefighter. The depth of his experience
and insight will be reveal were to be revealed over many years and thousands of responses to calls for service. When new firefighters attend the Massachusetts firefighting academy, one important skill that is taught is not tying. By the time Cadet Gmbali
graduated, with his long experience working in the waters off of our coast and tending his fishing gear, he left the instructors with as many knots tying tips as they had taught him. Joe was promoted to lieutenant in August of 2014. Right away, he threw himself into
his new role and the added responsibilities carried in his own unique way. All firefighters have as part of their kit uh a binder of information on certain properties in town and streets. Um you may have noticed Swansa Scott uh
a lot of roads that are cut in the middle a lot of house housing the numbering sequence of which I don't know how we landed up with. uh firefighters carry with them notes on to help them uh you know in emergency response to keep straight where they're going as far as
as well as buildings and um sprinkler systems, fire suppression and detection systems. Um, Joe's binder quickly became the go-to source for in information on sprinkler systems or alarm systems or detailed drawings and floor floor plans
for the informative maps and some of Swamscott's of some of Swamscott's confusingly numbered and hard to navigate streets complete with little humorous drawings as memory aids. Other officers soon began to ask if they could
copy pages from Jones Binder, myself included. By April 2018, when Joe was promoted to the rank of captain, it seemed a natural evolution. He was already deeply respected for his knowledge and problem solving ability, and many younger firefighters were eager to serve on his
shift. Joe was retiring on January 1st, 2026, 2027, sorry. After serving the town for 29 years, if he were if I'm sorry, 2026. Yeah, we're pretty early. >> Yeah, 2026. Excuse me. uh if he were
allowed, he he'd absolutely stay on longer. He's he's not ready to go. It's always a significant loss of experience when a firefighter with so many years leaves us. In this case, it would be it will be a particularly deep one. Although he has been dedicating more
time over the past couple years to pass on what he has learned to a whole new generation of firefighters who sprung up around him, he is the he he is uh the one where there is one area, excuse me, where Joe will fail. He will they will
learn a lot and will benefit. But there is no escaping the fact that Joe when Joe's packing up, he'll be packing up more than just clothes and photos from his locker at the end of this month. He'll be leaving us. He will he will be leaving with an insight the entire department will have to work hard to
replace for years to come. Joe. So on behalf of the select board, I have an official citation of appreciation in recognition of your 29 years of dedicated service to our town and that is presented to Captain Joe Kumali
tonight. Thank you very much, Captain Kali. a small appreciation. We have this lovely >> photograph of our of our waters, >> the harbor where you spent time before us and hopefully you'll spend a lot of
time after us. >> I will. I really will. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Do you want to say something? >> Uh, Captain Kamali, would you like to say something? I don't know if you're a man of few words or many. this.
>> All right, let Graham do that. You come on up here. And uh >> I would like just to say what an honor and a privilege privilege it has been working with the guys that I've worked with for 30 years. And um I'll miss them terribly.
>> Thank you. And we will also say uh uh we are in debt to the family of Captain Bali also who has allowed him to serve our town for 30 years. So thank you very much. All right, we will move on to the presentation of the citations of
appreciation for Girl Scout Troop 72182 for the completion of their silver award nature for all. Would you folks like to pop up to the mic? Please
don't be shy. Why don't you introduce yourself and then you could tell us about your project. You want to rock paper scissors? You go. >> Okay. So, do I just >> Okay. So, I'm Amelia Crean. I'm a Oh,
I'm Audrey Hail. >> I'm Tea Odonahue. >> Um, so our project was to do a silver award and we chose to do it on a nature box face. Oh my gosh. Um, and we also
put like plants and like inside we put like information cards and plants and stuff to like help >> students like learn about like the outdoors. >> So like these so like there's like bingo sheets and informationational cards on
like tracks and other stuff and >> Oh yeah. Where where are these items? >> Um it's like in Yuing Woods like right behind the elementary school >> on like the kiosk. >> Okay. >> Thing. >> Very cool. >> Okay. So, one of the parts of our
project was to plant gardens in front of the new elementary school. So, we we did we we did weeding and we planted new native plants and we also made a bunch of signs about butterflies. We did them on monarchs, painted ladies, and the
eastern black swallow tails. And inside our nature box, we put like a QR code so that for I naturalist so people can learn about like wildlife and like identify species and like tracks and plants and stuff.
>> Yeah. So, like as we said, uh there's a nature box in Yuing Woods we put on the kiosk at the entrance. And so, it just has like little fun activities that people can grab and do as they're like walking through the woods. And they also have like plants in them so that you can
like take them home and like put them in your garden and so you can just like grow them. And so, we put in new plants like every month and then in the winter we put in seed packets. Yeah. That sounds fantastic. Thank you very
much, girls. >> Um, and would you um care to tell us how long this project took? >> We've been doing it since like July, I think, and we ended in like late September.
>> Okay. And then now that you've completed your silver award, what's next? >> Gold. >> Gold award. >> And what does that normally entail? Do you know? a lot. >> Am I putting you on the spot? >> So, like it's like a lot more effort and
like with the silver award, we can do it like as a group, but with the gold award, we each have to do one separately. And it also involves like a lot more effort with like more hours to put in and more time and thought into it. But yeah, we hope to get it. >> That's awesome. Does anybody else have
any questions? >> Hope. You don't hope. You're going to get it. You're all three of you will. I know it. So, I have a question. So, was it easy working together to to make this project? Because we've we've seen you before, right? This crew.
>> Um, yeah, it was easy. And we also get along really well, so it's easy to like build teamwork. >> Now, moving to the gold award, you have to do gold awards separately. >> You can't do anything together. >> No. And it's a lot more hours, too. So, it's like a lot more individual time.
Mhm. Mhm. But you are going to go for the gold award, right? >> Yes. >> All right. >> Good. >> Well, we have some re recognition for all three of you in achieving your silver award. And thank you very much for the things you're doing for our to
uh support our woods and nature and all of the um the native plantings and educating us. It's amazing and we're very glad to have you in our communities. Thank you very much. >> I I think we also need to thank your
leader Suzanne Hail for all the effort that she puts in and guiding you guys through this. And we'll make you take a picture. >> I'm sure I'm sure it's a total coincidence that they did native plants. >> Don't worry, we'll get that out. >> All right. Ready? Sometimes you need
Thank you very much and we can't wait to see you back for gold. Okay, we will now move on to the town administrators report. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. How can you >> I can't top this so far. This is quite
an open for the >> sweater neck is coming real close. >> I don't know. >> It's a nice sweater you have. >> It's an effort. It's an effort. >> Um I have a few brief updates that I'll share and happy to take questions about anything I talk about or that you would like me to address. First, um >> from the police.
>> FYI, we don't have it it seems. >> Okay. >> Okay. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Okay. All right. We'll pay very close attention. >> Feel free to riff off this and ask other questions. Um, from the police department, uh, I just wanted to give an update on where we are with hiring. There's a number of applications that
have come through to the chief and the leadership team. Uh, I believe the number is between like 18 and 22 uh that they are reviewing. These are the folks that they will start with. Um, they review qualifications. From there, they can be moved forward to a background check uh, and interview. The idea is to
get eight to 10 of them I ideally is what we anticipate um into the background check and the interview process in January. So I'll continue to give you updates on where they are because I know there's an interest in making sure that we're uh staffed and replacing uh any officers that move out of town. Um in addition to that, the two
new hires, Nate Espanol and Sam Holy are slated to be joining the January Academy in Lynfield for Nate and Sam is joining the February in Randolph. She was not. She was on the wait list in Lynfield. We anticipated her getting in, but she did not. But she is uh enrolled in the
February Academy, so they will both be starting in the first two months with that process. There's a number of months there, then field training. So before they are fully on their own, it's a 9 to 12 month window. Um but we're we're happy to be getting them in there. Uh at the fire department, Chief Archer is working on uh the purchase of a new
ladder truck. Uh I guess he left. I thought he was still here. I thought he'd be excited to talk about this. Um there's an uh opportunity from Pierce to buy an asbuilt truck so that we do not have to wait the 18 to 36 months depending on on the truck. There's a small delta between the appropriation
and um the cost right now. So he and Patrick are going through to see if there's outstanding purchase orders uh that are not being used. I think in the end if there are, we will likely go back to finance committee later on if if there is a need for any of those items uh and use the finance committee reserve
or request the use of it to make up that change. I I believe it's a 15 to $20,000 difference between the appropriation and the cost. Uh this is the cheapest way for us to get one because it's as built and we're not sort of putting bells and whistles on and it's also the quickest because in each batch of new trucks they
have one or two that are not assigned to a community. So, this is we're we're fortunate to have this chance and Patrick and the chief are working really hard on that. Um, at town hall in the open positions, uh, I had a very good discussion with a finance director candidate, another one coming up this
week. I'm cautiously optimistic that there will be a more wholesome update for you all the first week in January, probably an email sooner than that, but um, just working through that. We've finalized the assessor reddraft and we'll be reposting with the higher salary. We also have a promising
interview coming up for town clerk. Um, and finally on the public safety administration position, I wanted to highlight that Diane will be moving over to that role. We'll be posting for a new admin at town hall. So, we're excited to be moving forward with a number of different positions all at the same time. Uh, it's a lot of progress all at
once. Um, a brief update on Hawthorne just because I know everyone is uh keenly interested. number one for the community. Parking is available. So, please do use that parking lot, park within the lined spots, of course, uh but it's an opportunity for us to activate the space a little bit and also
expand parking availability in the community. So, please feel free to do that. A little update on the RFP itself. We've had more than a dozen folks that have requested and downloaded it. That being said, some are community members. You've put in an email address or some people have just sort of put in
gibberish to download it. Um, so there's community members, there's interested parties that we know are, and then this week we're actually doing site visits as well for folks that wanted to schedule it. We posted an addendum that expanded it from only the 17th to any day this week by appointment. Marzy and Max have
been making those happen this week and we've had a number of interested groups go through asking good questions um, and sort of, you know, just getting a look at the inside so that they can put together a better presentation in their response to our request. So, we're looking forward to that. Um, in
addition, I wanted to finally thank uh Heidi for a training that I took part in this past week. It's de dementia friendly training that she does. Uh, it's available to elected officials. If you haven't done it, appointed officials. And then on the staff side, the goal is to have 80% of employees go
through this training and it's it helps us to identify but then also support someone that may be, you know, working through uh symptoms of dementia if they were to come in and need any help from the town hall staff. So I did it with a couple of senior workoff volunteers and you know we continue to sort of make
sure new employees are aware of it and get into it. But Heidi was kind enough for for this training to do it town hall once we got the three of us myself and the two uh senior workoff folks together. She also does them on a regular basis at the senior center. So if you all haven't done it yet would encourage you to do it. And if uh anyone
else is interested in doing it any community members as well I know Heidi would um really appreciate it. There's also a number of businesses in town that participate in the forget me not program. which is tangentially related. It's just making sure the community itself is aware and thinking about, you know, folks that you may interact with
and what those signs look like so that everyone can can be on the same page. And on the business side, you know, it's opportunities for spaces and times that aren't as loud or uh crowded or things like that so that folks can be comfortable um coming into the business. So that is my update uh generally and I
apologize that you do not have anything in your binder. Um, we will continue to refine this binder idea for making sure you guys have everything you need and um, just so you're aware, the Thursday before the meeting, these will be ready at town hall for you all uh, going
forward in this format with any changes that you suggest. We're happy to address them as well. >> Excellent. >> Any questions? >> Yeah, just two quick questions, Nick. U, so when can the select board actually visit the Hawthorn? >> I now finally have a key for Max. So
literally whenever I can work with each of the five of you, uh we can do it together as long as there's no deliberation. A site visit is within open meeting laws or I can take you all individually. Max is going to walk me through the um the alarm as well. So we can either look for a weekend morning
and afternoon. You all can let me know individually or as a group how you'd like to do that. But I literally got the key this afternoon. Marzy was nice enough to to grab one um from Max for me. >> Awesome. And then my second question was how are we so lucky to have the opportunity to acquire an asbuilt firet
truck um considering the weight is up to three years. >> So the chief has been working with the salesperson that is his contact for a while and had identified that this is something that we would be able to do because again the more um bells and whistles or the more customization you
do the less likely you're able to do this. He and the team at the fire department looked closely at what the specs were, made sure that it worked for them, and he has been aggressive in letting the salesperson know that if any of them become available, we wanted to have a bite at the apple. And that's why he and Patrick are working to figure out
this. It's I think it's between 15 and $20,000. I don't have the exact number. Um, and if we would need to in the future, as I said, we would go back to BIMCOM on the reserve, if there comes up something in the next 6 months that would require require that money to be
uh put forward again on a PO or something, but we were sort of scraping together what's available to make sure that we could get it done as quickly as possible. >> Excellent. Thank you. >> And it's it's a credit to the chief to answer the question directly. >> I h I have two questions on that. one because it's an opportunity that's
available to us. Do it doesn't go through typical procurement. >> We so we have the capital appropriation already. Okay. >> And the procurement this is either we would order it and sort of pay on delivery or this is an opportunity to short circuit that weight. >> And then this is going to replace which one currently?
>> I do not know the answer to that. I apologize. >> Okay. >> I can ask. >> Anybody else? >> Yep. I had some questions about Hawthorne. Um, will we be letting residents know with a newsletter, email, whatever mode that parking at the
Hawthorne is an option for them? Is there a sign that we're going to put up? Anything to let people know that they can park there? >> Yes, to all of the above. We can do all of them. It was something that Max and I had spoken to the police department about to make sure that, and I think I said this to one or some of you in the past, but the police department was actually really excited when we
suggested it because it would activate the space. >> Yeah. And it wouldn't be that there's an empty lot in front of a building that we're also >> holding on to right now. >> And my second question is when we have people coming through um to tour do the site visits, do we have like an FAQ or
any type of anything that we're giving out with like standard questions that prospective tenant or or you know restaurant tour might ask, right? Like common questions. Do we have those prepared or something to give in terms of like a not a presentation but like a
>> So what everyone has right now is the RFP that's posted in the addendums. The addendums are for the dates of the visit and there was a second one. >> What was it? >> Yeah. So we don't the answer is no to
and for the procurement we wait for the questions. We have a week to answer them and then we post the answers. So in the course of the discussion uh during any of the tours if there's a question asked we ask them to put it in writing. >> Okay. >> Because the benefit is meant to acrue to anyone who would apply via the procurement. >> Yeah. Be unequal for
>> exactly. So if folks say you know from a building inspector standpoint what would need to be done? That was a question that had been asked and we asked to be reduced to writing but I talked to Rich and said can you start working on the answer to this anticipating that the question is going to be very broad >> um in the types of things that a
potential respondent would need to be thinking about. >> Okay. Okay. >> But we don't hand anything out. >> Okay. Great. But it will be made available to anybody that has >> Yeah, it's to this board, I would assume, as well. >> It's Yep. It's on the schedule for I think the questions are due right before Christmas. Our answers are due right before New Year's or right after. It's
something like that. We have approximately a week to answer them. >> Excellent. That's all I have. >> Have we reached out to any organizations like um brewing organizations or >> We have not. We've >> restaurant just the respondents that we've had. can certainly make contact
with the Mass Brewers Guild and Mass Restaurant Association tomorrow. >> Is that it? >> I have one question. If if we have if we have outstanding we under capital we have extra money under DPW equipment.
Is there a possibility we can slide some of that from DPW equipment over >> for the fire truck? Are we talking about? >> Yeah. >> Uh, no. The authorization that was voted on was for an amount specific for the ladder truck. So, that's what we're working within. >> Um, and I think that we should be able
to get >> through the POS that we would sort of abandon for now. We should be able to get there. the the sort of outstanding item would be that we may go before fin say there a portion of that reserve might be necessary for something whether it's >> it would be it would be unforeseen so it
would qualify then >> right >> the alternative would be >> you know sort of push the timeline and hope that Pierce holds on to it while we >> go before you know it it's six in one half dozen the other and so we thought the best option was to try to find it within our expense line now and make it all work
>> and then if an unforeseen future expense comes up we would go before fin expl And obviously we're highlighting tonight what we're doing. So it's, you know, this is the first domino if that were necessary. So we've been public about this and then would also in the future say there's an expense that we hadn't foreseen or
>> whatever the case may be. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh we will move on to public comment. um in the uh I guess new fashion, we've been sort of trying to streamline public comment so that we are able to uh
streamline the rest of the meeting. So if you're here for public comment, you may comment on anything that is not a public hearing on the agenda. Um so any item on the agenda or off is open for public comment >> for three minutes. >> You Oh, three minutes. And please approach a microphone with your name and
your address. Okay, seeing none, we will move on to new and old business, which uh first item is a public hearing, which is a discussion and possible vote to consider the approval of the application for multiple amendments of an existing section 15 off- premises wine and malt
beverage license to um an off- premises all alcohol license. And that's for 44 Atlantic, Inc. doing business as Richdale Swampscott located at 444 Humphrey Street, Swamscott, Mass 907, including a change of manager, a change
to officer and director and shareholder. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> How are you? >> I think you have to >> Yep. We're going to uh entertain a motion to enter public the public hearing. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I
>> feeling better tonight. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Thank you. Um I I to maybe help your understanding of what it is, I gave to Tim a map that I think >> is Has everybody seen it? >> It's in you
>> so that you can see exactly by my color coding where uh the uh alcoholic beverages would be kept as opposed to the beer and wine which are already there.
Um, and I think we were pretty much through our presentation um, at the last meeting. Um, so I guess we'd be open to uh, questions and and maybe any comments
from any any towns people. >> Okay. So, as this is a public hearing, if there is anybody from the public who wishes to speak, now would be the time to do so online or in person, you can
approach the microphone. Diane, we can't I can't see up if an online hand is raised. So, if you doesn't please approach the mic, state your name and your address, please. um 432 Humphrey Street.
Um at the last meeting, a letter was was read from neighbors who complained about teenagers drinking beer and leaving cans um and also defacing property with spray
paint. And I don't know what that has to do with a business that's run properly having a liquor license. Um, I know Vinnie, I know his wife and I
know his son who just he's just started his first year of college. Um, this man would never sell the underage uh residents of Swans or anywhere. He
just wouldn't do it. Um, he raised a responsible teenage son. And I I found that that letter just brought out the fact that we need to know where
parents at, not who's selling liquor. And the other point I wanted to make is that I walk the beach. I live across from Fisherman's Beach. I walk the beach two or three times a day from April to right through till November.
And I pick up trash. I pick up two bags of trash every day. I have getters. I have stainless steel. If you've been to the beach, you've seen me there all the time. Um, the things that I pick up are not beer bottles.
Uh, they are nips and they're grape. Um, some kind of a grape. And when they throw them out there, they come in a package, you can get like a dozen. And that's
what I find on the beach. So whatever where those coming from, it's not from this store because they don't sell them. And I find I do find needles. Um,
I I warn parents when I do find them to be careful of the orange tips and ask their children not to touch them. Um, but the most uh thing that I find is
cigarettes, cigarette boxes. I pick up hundreds of cigarette butts every single day all summer. The people take their cigarettes, they
open that little cellophane, and that's that's a beach. And I mean, our kids play there. It's not an ashtray. So, in terms of keeping our community safe and clean, I don't see what this uh
business trying to get a liquor license has to do with that at all. Thank you. >> All right. I think um we don't have any additional hands raised for public comment. So, uh, we would be opening discussion to the board. Um, there were
we had some conversations last time about, um, I think it was left, you know, where the liquor would be stored. It's very clear on this sheet where that storage is. Um, if there are any outstanding questions, now would be the time.
>> So, I don't know that I have a question as much as I have a concern. Um, I have a concern as a parent, right? Just as a resident. I'm just I feel like underage drinking in our town is a thing. It's a thing maybe we don't like
to talk about a lot, but it's neighboring towns have had issues. It's almost an epidemic, I would say, um, in small towns. And I just personally have just a bad feeling about a convenience
store that is frequented all summer, all year by kids buying candy and ice cream and slush and us just having more exposure to alcohol in a place that people will go to typically buy a snack,
maybe gum, maybe, you know, whatever. Um, we have three full-size liquor stores in a three square mile town. I don't think that, you know, um, we're lacking for places to buy liquor, right? And I for, it's my understanding that
this license already has a beer and wine license, right? So, this is an expansion of the license. I think, not that I I want to, you know, cut into anybody's profit margin, but I think that at some point someone has
to start talking about, you know, underage drinking in in a town of our size. And and it's a, you know, to the to the previous person's comments, first of all, thank you for picking up stuff on the beach every day. That's amazing. I I I couldn't thank you enough for doing that. I mean, if more people did
that, we would be in so much better shape. Um, but to your point, it is a bigger problem, right? And it's a bigger community problem. It's not just parents. It's not just store owners. It's not um just select board. It's everybody. And I just think that I I'm
having a hard time wrapping my head around more exposure to alcohol for kids that are in places like a convenience store because I think of a convenience store as a place that, you know, I I I focus on on kids, you know, that that are going there to buy a snack after
school or they're going to jump off the pier and they're getting an ice cream and, you know, not that they would attempt to buy alcohol, but it's the exposure to it and it's the constant message um that everywhere you you can, you know, buy a drink or, you know, I just that that's just me. That's my gut
feeling. But at the same time, I don't certainly want to hurt this business, which is obviously run by incredibly great community members, and I don't discount that at all. But I just that's my concern just as a human and as a parent. >> I might if I might respond to that. >> Of course. Yeah. if they don't get this
all alcohol license, it's it's available to someone else at a different location, >> but that it's available at a liquor store, right? >> As a liquor store, a full a full liquor store in another location in town. Doesn't affect their beer and wine. They would still have their beer and wine,
>> right? But a liquor store is not a place where my kid is going to buy an ice cream. >> Pardon me. >> That a liquor store is not a place that my kid is going to go in and buy an ice cream. That's my concern. That's where my thought process is. You know what I mean? >> I understand that. >> But I get your point, >> but you know, this is a license that's
available. Sure. >> And someone's going to get it and it's going to be in in in our town. >> And you've got you've got somebody who's demonstrated how responsible that they're responsible owners and how they deal with their present license, having for nine years had no complaints.
>> Oh, I'm not I'm not discounting that. I'm not that's not at all my concern, but thank you for that. I appreciate that. Um >> so I have two comments. One, I would like to understand what even our legal
platform would be to I I don't think I I am uncertain. I am not practicing right now, but I am uncertain that we have the ability as a board to deny him a license because it makes us uncomfortable. I don't I don't know and we don't have I unless there is something in our packet
I didn't see. We don't have the commentary from KP to say his proximity to the beach or something like that allows us to not approve this license. That's that's the first question where my my mind goes, right? Because we need to be
aware that we have certain legal ramifications and we need to be within those ramifications. Uh the second observation I would like to make which is a recent experience I had at the Richdale which my son takes his bike to the Richdale all the time. He goes with his buddy. They go to get
candy and soda. And I happened to walk in when my son was there with with a couple of his friends. And there were two of them inside. And I said, "Why are there only two of you inside?" And he said, "We're only allowed to be two inside at a time." I said, "You are?" He said, "Yeah, when there are kids here,
we're only allowed two at a time. And if we walk in with more than two, we're asked to wait until those two are done and then two of us go in." And I said, "And you listen?" "Of course we listen." "Okay, great. Well, good job me. And I said, "Thank you so much." And then I
said, "If this one gives you trouble, you let me know." And he said, "I will." And so I laughed. And to me, that speaks volumes to the type of management that is happening at this location. It is not just that you've asked something of this community, but this community respects
you enough to give it to you. Right? So my kid is showing up on his bicycle and has very little cares in the world, but he is concerned of what you're asking him to do and he's respecting that. So thank you for that and for helping because she was an active community member and teaching kids how to be
active community members and I appreciate that. I still I do still have the fears that Miss Leonard states which is I but I also look at your layout and I see that all your alcohol is at the back of the store. So, why would my kid have to go anywhere past this grocery? Because anything in the back is not for
him. It's there's alcohol in the back, there's wine, there's beer. I would hope that anything small bottlene could fall off the shelf is behind the counter and not on the shelves. I think that's common practice. So, I want to make sure that we are in the parameters of our
legal rights and that we understand what we can and cannot deny a license for. and at the same time being thoughtful of you know what community presence you're bringing. >> So to answer the first comment there is nothing in >> okay >> that lays out that framework. I'm happy
to work with KP if you were to continue again we could have that in writing to you in advance to review and then uh in the packets for the evening of the next meeting. Um but I do not have that ready for this evening. >> I just want to make sure I'm understand what you're saying there. You're not
sure the answer to Katie's question or you believe it's correct that we don't really have the legal right to deny this application for that. >> I believe it's correct that there's a framework that you need to follow that is probably well tested and legal. >> Okay. But we're not that I don't have
that in front of me. And so if the if the will of the board was to look at it from that framework or that standpoint or that point of view, I would want you to have that information so that you understood what the parameters are as as Katie sort of described. >> Yeah, >> I would like to see those parameters
because um I am concerned with some of the points that Daniel Leonard just brought up tonight. >> I'm happy to circulate that well in advance of the next meeting. It's a request I can make of them in the morning. Um, it's fine. I I'm ready to
make a motion to to approve this. Uh, because I I I totally understand those concerns, but given the fact I'm in the store all the time, there really is like a very it's a small store. I'm not saying that some kid couldn't go over there for sure. They can already go over
there and get a beer or wine. Um, we're talking about adding, you know, some liquor behind the cash register and at the end of a cooler. Um, so to me it feels like there's a balance here. You know, u this, if a kid is
looking to get alcohol, they're either going to already be able to get it here or somewhere else. Um, and um, you know, this is a well operated business. Um, and I do think that the balance comes to there is a license. They're adhering to
everything that we know of that they should adhere to. and um it seems like a reasonable balanced approach to uh proceed with the the license. So that's that's I guess if I don't know if I have to read the motion to make the motion,
but um that's that's the gist of my >> perspective. >> We have one hand up. If you don't mind if I take that before you motion, that would be great. >> Mr. Mr. Deto, you may unmute yourself. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome.
>> Bill Dementoto, 108 Paradise Road. I have uh no opinion relative to this particular store. I have two other thoughts and that is the first one being they wouldn't be here if you didn't have
a right to deny it. And the statute is very clear that the standard is is it in the public good to have this license. That is the standard. But you have all the authority in the world to deny it.
Unless you're going to deny it because Chris Truas is their lawyer. Other than that, >> thanks Bill. >> Other than that, you have all the power in the world to do it. Uh, I just that
that caught me listening and say saying they wouldn't have a public hearing unless you had the right to deny it. But it just has to be uh something that if the majority of the board feels it isn't in the public good, then they don't get
the license. It's a very discretionary things. That's why it's called the license. Thank you for your time. >> Well, I I just say that that's a logical conclusion. I'm not sure it's necessarily the conclusion. I mean our job could be to make sure that they adhere to all the requirements of the
application and that may be the purview which we have theoretically it's not not just >> and in response to that he is correct. I mean you have you would have the right to reject it but your job is to balance balance all the the factors that are enumerated in the
statute and in the Valerant case. say things like traffic is it are we going to create traffic issues? Um is it is it going to create parking issues? Is it going to create noise issues? Is it going to create uh public safety issues? And I would say to you based upon the
information that you have, this is a very busy area in town. I don't think it's going to it's going to have a very minimal effect if any uh on on traffic or in the general area. I I think it's far enough away from uh any other liquor
store. So it it's not a question of need. It's a question of balancing the the equities and and provide and being able to provide a service that the public desires. Otherwise, there wouldn't be these
licenses and there wouldn't be in a town like Swanska as many licenses as there are. And if you read the Balorin case, I I think it it enumerates exactly all these issues and how you have to balance them. Uh and I would maintain that based
upon the owner that you that and the experience that you had with them. I mean they have 16 cameras of this place. So, so not only are they monitoring how many kids come in there, where they are, and they can watch and see if any of
them go back there, they can monitor everything that's going on there. And I think that uh you got a wonderful owner who wants to do this in a limited capacity, which is uh I think something that's also credible. And they're
willing to as as keep it that way. They're willing to specify that if you if you only want them to use this the particular areas that they've laid out to sell alcohol, they'll live with that. >> Yeah. I I mean, I've I've been to the
store. I go mostly in the summertime, Vinnie. I've I've been I've been seeing you for, you know, probably at least the last six uh years or so. Um the store is wellrun. It's well respected. You have neighbors that are showing up not to oppose you, but to support you. Um
that's not something we see. uh very often at a select board meeting or certainly a hearing uh about uh beer, wine, spirits, etc. So, uh I think that's a testament to your to your management. So, I'm I'm fully in support. I think um you know, I I
certainly think that you've proven yourself over the last nine years of operating this location with a with a beer and wine license. And I think the the full license is is something that uh that I would I would support because I think you're going to do it the right way. I know you're going to do it the right way.
>> It's a maybe I should know this. This has to be renewed annually. >> I was just gonna make that. >> Okay. So, we have the opportunity to evaluate if there are concerns. We'd be a be right back here like the rest of the things we have to go through tonight and kind of renewing or not renewing
based on what had happened. >> I think it's a little harder to when you have to renew versus not initiating it. And I think it's a very valid point having having kids
frequent frequent a convenience store. It's a convenience store and kids are frequent frequenting a convenience store. They're generally not frequent frequenting a liquor store. And I think that's the reasons why the Commonwealth actually set up licenses in different
categories or at least it's one of the reasons why. Um, you know, I I would not be comfortable with my child going into a convenience store where there is
a lot of displays of liquor, wine, beer, liquor behind the counter. I think those constant images don't add to a to a good result often. I think that it is something that just definitely
concerns me. So, um I personally just feel like I'd really like to know more about what are the rules around, you know, denying a liquor license. Um just because I I don't have enough experience in this.
>> I just want to clarify too, I maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not so much as concerned with kids or teens or pre-teens being able to go and actually purchase the liquor, >> right? >> That's not my concern. My concern is the
atmosphere created um in a place where kids frequent and you're selling liquor. Okay? It's different when I don't know, you've had a couple drinks on the beach, you go to Richdale across the street, you want to get a six-ack of high noons, and you're walking in next
to my kid who's buying a slush, right? It's that type of atmosphere that that gives me pause. It's not that I'm concerned that, you know, Katie's fourth grader is going to go down the wrong aisle and and pick up a McGillicuies. That's that's not what I'm talking about. So I'm not a So to say let's re
look at this in a year and see if we have instances of you know situations where we could you know potentially look to change or reverse a ruling that that's not my concern. My concern is we just approved a license I don't know a quarter mile up the road for an actual
liquor store. >> Half a mile. >> Thank you. Half mile. Um isn't that enough? At what point in this town of three and a half miles is it enough liquor? Right? I I it's an honest question, right? We've got bars, we've got restaurants, we've got clubs, we've
got three liquor stores. Now we've got convenience stores. Fine. Why do we need to continue to expand? Um and is it appropriate? Is it in the best interest of the people in this community for this particular type of establishment to have
that atmosphere? Right. That's all that's my that's my concern. It's not that kids are going to go in and accidentally buy a you know 40. No. Um it's that that exposure that that element that environment is different
than you know the same reason why we're not letting 12-year-olds you know go into VIN and Liquors right unattended or by themselves right you just wouldn't feel comfortable right so just because we have a liquor store that this is kind of like a quasi liquor store to me now
right it's not a convenience store that sells beer and wine we're now talking about a mini liquor store that's selling all liquor beer and wine in some groceries, right? So, it changes the whole feel to me of that rich deal. >> I don't disagree with you, but I don't
know as a parent then if it's not my job to just say, "Sorry, Jack. You can't go down to Richdales anymore because I don't feel like that's an appropriate place for you as as your parent. you have to go to a different place that doesn't sell alcohol to get your convenience rather than sending him to
Rich Dales rather than penalize you all and say you can't sell liquor. So maybe it does change what that place becomes. >> But so we penalize the kids of the town by not letting them go to the store. >> Well, the question comes the prediction becomes as a parent you make a decision
>> to not let your kid go to the richale because we decided to let them sell. Well, I think the question becomes what is the public good? >> Is it public good to say no kids can't go into a convenience store? >> I think I think the public good is to
have a a broad range of broad range of commerce and right now we you know what we have there is a convenience store >> but but you have a convenience store that sells beer and wine currently. So an argument can be made. You know, Miss
Leonard just mentioned a high noon. You can't sell a high noon at this particular location. High noon, >> but you can now. >> You would be able to. >> That's what I'm talking about. >> High noon just mentioned. >> Yeah. So hard selzer would, you know,
typically has alcohol between four and 5%. we're talking about. >> Sorry, some technical difficulties. Um, high noons or, you know, these other these other tea beverages, you know, I mean, we're talking about alcohol percentages that are, you know, that are
reasonable. Some of these double and triple IPAs have 8, nine, 10% alcohol. Wine >> often has doubledigit alcohol >> uh there. So, I mean, you don't have the ability to sell these Sun Cruisers or
the High Noonses or any of those Spike Seltzer drinks, which are typically low >> alcohol drinks without an all alcohol license, >> right? >> Which from the first presentation was was something that was really a focus and >> that's what's driving it more than
anything. I I feel woefully unprepared with my contribution to the types of alcohol that we're going to be discussing tonight. But um I will proceed uh because I don't I don't now it seems clear to me that this is not the consensus seems to be
it's not really an issue Chris if we accept what Chris said about the the rationale for what we can we we could decline we you know we could decline this we have the right to do that per Mr. Dementoto per Chris um you know so
I I I'll accept the fact that we could decline this and u and people so I don't think we need to wait um to figure out whether or not we could decline this. Could I just weigh in? The Balorin test gives you a framework that would allow something to survive a challenge. So Bill is right that we do have the
ability to do this. However, if we do not look at it with a framework that actually identifies what's going on, then we we will not survive an appeal. So, that is a the rationale behind waiting is to understand that what the framework is, not just the the high
points that he highlighted, but you know what we can conceivably be looking at and weighing against the public good or the density of licensing or any of these items that have been identified tonight. So, two things can be true. Like, yes, we do have the right or you do have the right to to do what you would like. It's
a license that you grant. However, to survive an appeal, we need to be thoughtful about what the things are that are most important to the board. >> Yeah. I I'm just taking in consideration that we've asked them to come back a second time already. Now, we're thinking about kind of having them come back a third time. And uh you know, I'm happy to take the risk that you know, maybe
we're just going to approve this right now. Um and so there won't be an issue about an appeal. Um, so but I leave it up to the chair if you wish to, you know, uh, postpone this again and have them come back again or take a vote. >> You can make a motion. >> Well, does this does this affect their
current license, their regular beer and wine license? >> No, they can continue to sell as they have been with the provided you renew that after after this. Right. Right. >> So the only thing it the only thing it would affect is additional sales. Additional sales over two weeks.
>> Right. And I would say this, I mean, I think that Doug, I take your point. They have been back. Um, I think that I think that it is important that if we're talking about
not approving this or any other license that comes before us, that we're having that convers that larger conversation in a context of the framework which Nick is talking about so that we understand if for example the the state provides us with a certain number of licensing
that's available to us. But if we have a as a town want to say we think we've reached the density in this area and we aren't interested in for whatever reason approving licenses in this area. Is that
something that we could do within the legal parameters that are set forth by us to say that we feel like the licenses are dense enough in this area and we would not like to go forward. I I think that that framework is important not just for this particular instance but
for instances going forward. Um I mean I I'm I go back and forth because also I think to your point Mr. If not you guys then somebody else and if we can't regulate
the areas or parameters based on the legal framework then we have to consider the applicant as the best applicant to come forward and make sure they maintain the standards that that we're saying he has been for the last nine years. So you know >> that's that's my position clearly.
>> Yeah. And let's just be clear, we're talking about in a town of 15,000 people putting in a one aisle that's six feet long. That's that's really what we're talking about um here >> in a very small store. >> In a very small store. You're talking
about one whole aisle in addition and behind behind the counter 12t. >> They don't get 12 feet. >> Six feet each side >> and no behind the counter. See here. >> Okay. >> Yes. I'm not exaggerating your point, but I'm just saying >> is ownership also I'm I'm so sorry that I'm I'm a little confused on here, but
is ownership changing? >> No, the the structure of the ownership. >> There used to be two shareholders. There's only one uh >> he he was he bought him out. >> Yeah, he bought out bought out the partner. >> Okay. >> Uh and that the and the uh manager has
changed. We want to change the manager. So, those are those are other aspects that we're asking for as well. So, >> so we really would like Vinnie. >> You're the majority shareholder. >> No, >> no, >> no. Bob is >> so the manager, right? So, there's
>> he's the manager. >> Okay. >> So, those things are happening simultaneously where the requests, there's a change of manager, there's a change of officer and director, there's a change of stock interest, >> right? >> And there is a change to the license, >> right?
>> All of those things. So you could vote to support approve the amendments of all the shareholder pieces, the officers, the managers, and leave the expansion to liquor separate for the time being. You could choose to do that >> um until we get the framework.
>> Um or >> I'm fine with that. >> You can make Is there a motion then to be made? >> Well, there's a motion on the there's a motion on the floor. Is is there a motion on the floor? >> There is not. You didn't make a motion. >> No. All right. I'll I'll motion to approve the multiple amendments to the
existing section 15 off- premises wine and malt beverage license uh for 444 Atlantic uh doing business as Richdale Swampskit 444 Humphrey Street change of manager officers director and the change of stock interest as presented and we'll hold off on the on
the uh on the on the vote of an all alcohol license uh for now until we have the pres until we have more information at our next meeting. Do I have a second? >> I would second that. >> All in favor of David's motion? >> I >> I >> I
>> Okay, so we have approved everything but the all alcohol piece and we will come back to discuss that and Marzy will be in contact with you about when that next meeting will be. Um and uh we will take a motion to close the public hearing for the application of the mult.
>> So move second. One thing I think that that might be a little bit helpful, one of the thing you have to understand when you and I would suggest you look at the Ballerin case that uh Nick brought up, town administrator, it's a case that
involves a situation where on Charles Street in Boston, there were within a quarter mile five restaurants that served full alcohol.
And the Ballerin the Ballerin had a restaurant but only had a beer and wine license. And they went in and and said, "Okay, there's five restaurants within a quarter mile. They all have full alcohol. I don't uh they're opposing me
for obvious reasons." Um and again the test was the test was whether it was reasonable under the circumstances to deny them. Uh and the decision is no that wasn't reasonable. So you have you
have to think about what's reasonable under the circumstance balancing all of the issues with reference to uh it's not need uh that that's the that's the test.
>> The need is whether or not it's reasonable under the circumstances to allow such a a license to exist. And I would maintain to that knowing these owners if if there's going to be another license in Swamp Scott
passing up on having it be this one even even with a condition imposing a condition that what they're showing you uh is what is all that they're going to is all that they're going to use to sell
their product. um is a golden opportunity to limit uh exposure to alcohol if you will within your three square miles. >> And on that I'll be quiet. >> Thank you. Appreciate that feedback. Uh
so all in favor to close uh the public hearing >> I >> I >> All right. Thank you very much. And >> just a point of clarification if you don't mind. Uh will this be will you continue to public hearing or do you want us to notice the meeting? Oh, you know, when you when you bring this back
up again, we need to reverse that. >> Yeah, I was going. >> So, because we closed the public hearing, we need to renotice it. >> So, I'd like to make a motion to reverse that closure. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. So, we mot uh the motion on the table that we should be proposing is to temporarily pause
>> to to table >> to continue. Thank you, David. The public hearing until the next select board meeting. >> So, move >> January 7th. >> January 7th. Thank you. >> January what? Seventh. >> Seventh. >> I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I
>> I. So, we have tabled the conversation just on this piece until the seventh. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um I do think it's important, Nick, I know you're leaving, but I do think it's important that we understand the
definition of reasonleness. uh as uh when we're understanding and maybe I'm sure KP will write us a memo and tell us the parameters of reasonableness that we can um to utilize that we feel like are stronger
>> for appeal >> I will not >> make sure so we can just understand >> okay we are moving on then to more thank you so much um to discussion and possible vote to renew annual liquor licenses, common
vigilary license, entertainment and class 2 licenses. >> I just make a brief introduction. So Tim, Marzy, Diane have gone through this a number of times today. So hopefully we're in good shape. I just want to highlight that in the printed documents
that was as of last Thursday when we printed these. So the red ones that still required some um it's in front of the presentation I believe. the red ones were the ones that still required some action whether it was uh checks that needed to be received uh inspections or something like that.
So that number has narrowed and the number of uh businesses that we still require either more action or information from is much narrower and Tim can speak to that. I just wanted to highlight in case you were looking at this document that we've continued to try to close out all of these open items since this was printed.
>> Okay. So, I think my colleagues can push me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that we have a need to go back to the presentation. I think as long as it's clear on the first page that they have is on um starting with liquor licenses,
which are at the top that we would be uh the motion would be to renew and I will read them uh so that we are >> just you guys have uh >> where the tab is Doug, >> you have the red >> and you overs that. Okay. >> Can I ask a question,
>> please? >> So, we're talking about annual license renewals. We're looking at liquor licenses. G and little G fall under one liquor license, but for the common Vic and the entertainment license, they they're two separate licenses. Can we
get an explanation as to why that is? >> Absolutely. Have to um the liquor license was issued under because it's the building is adjacent. So, it's um considered the alcohol beverage control commission is able to issue one license for the two entities. Uh the building
department because of um occupancy requirements and the need for additional firewalls between the the establishments u they created a maximum amount for occupancy. And the best way to address that in regards to the recommendations
from the building department is to have two separate um occupancy um maximums and max for each of the buildings. Therefore, we would request two separate uh common victuals license. >> Okay. But for entertainment purposes,
like if they're if they're probably on the same Direct TV or YouTube TV, I mean, we're we're going to charge them. I'm I'm just I'm I'm just I'm just asking it. just it just seems >> happy to respond to that. So, similar to the liquor license, we're treating the
entertainment license such as that that they'll only have one entertainment license, one liquor license, but two separate um common fictionist licenses. >> Oh, it does say though that G and Little G require two entertainment licenses
despite needing only one liquor license. >> So, it looks like they have two common Vic, two entertainment, but only one liquor license. >> Correct. entertainment. >> It would seem to me like at least from an entertainment perspective,
>> the vibe is different. There are TVs at Little G. They're not really There's not TVs at G. There's uh trivia and bands being played at Little G. That's not happening at G. So, it would seem like to me that they're sort of >> two distinct
>> two distinct separate and apart situations. Um, but that's an observation. >> I'm just Yeah, I'm just asking I'm just asking the question since we have, you know, since you have, you know, one liquor license because they're adjacent and now they're they're still adjacent but they're separate,
>> right? Are they are they two different companies, >> right? >> No, it's under one. >> It's all one company. >> That's correct. >> But but I will say the ABCC is what's going to control the liquor license. >> But that one's easy. I mean, if they're all one company, there's only one license. So, >> but we control the common bachelors and
the entertainment licenses. is they're under our authority. So if we tell them they need two, they need to. >> Excuse me. >> Why? One company. Why are we telling them it's two? >> Exactly. >> So that just goes back to the building department as I mentioned to you because
of the occupancy requirements and fire code. >> So is that a new development under this building commissioner or has it always been that way? >> I don't have that answer. I can ask Rich. >> Okay. Uh Did they have two last way?
>> I believe they had two last year. I believe we approved two last year. Yeah, they did have two. >> I believe that it would have predated Rich. >> Can we talk about these outstanding issues that are not with G and little not G and little G? >> Why don't we start with the liquor
license? >> The liquor licenses, please. >> Um, so can we >> there's a lot of liquor flowing around this community. talk about Mexalei and Paradiso. >> Yes. So, we can start with Mexicalei first. Um, confirm the department that these are the outstanding issues. This
is a letter that was sent to them on December 11th. It was dropped off in person. I believe this was actually the second notice that they had gotten. Um, the current outstanding issues are to s submit a current test report of the fire alarm, sprinkler system, and emergency lights and exit signage. Have the fire
extinguish fire extinguishers and kitchen anel system serviced and tagged approved by a licensed testing company. Install required push bar or hardware on the rear exit door at the exterior. Repair clo door closer to the top of the frame and uh remove unapproved lock.
Maintain a clear path of travel to all exits. There are obstructions and storage blocking safe access to the rear egress. There are some there there's a it goes into greater detail as well. Also, there is storage piled in front of the electrical service preventing the required service area of 30 in.
>> And um that is from Mexali, correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And you said it was dropped off and mailed. >> Uh it was dropped off in person. >> Okay. >> And we also have reached out to them personally several times via the phone to the manager. >> Have we got any response at all to what they're doing or what the status is?
Nothing. >> And paradiso. For Paradiso, they just need to submit similar to Mexic. They just have the one uh test report of the fire alarm, sprinkler system, emergency lights, and sign. Uh sorry, just the fire alarm and
the sprinkler system test report. That's what they need to submit. They don't need to be reinspected. They just need to submit that report, which from what Rich said, sounds like they will be doing that tomorrow. >> So Tim, Marzy, so we can we could we could potentially approve this subject, too. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> We've done that in the past. >> Excellent.
>> All right. >> Okay. So, I will um I will read the motion so we get it right. Uh the motion on the table would be a motion to approve the 2026 lister liquor licenses as follows, and allow the select board to a fix signatures electronically.
Um full approval. The following applicants have met the statutory requirements, completed all inspections, submitted all necessary documentation, and paid all required fees, and shall receive full approval of their liquor license. Andrea's Takaria 646 Humphrey Street. Aries Express 408 Humphrey
Street. Burl Street Liquors at 205 Burl Street. Cafe Avalino at 242 Humphrey Street. Tree Asian Cuisine at 435 Paradise Road. Docside Pub at 286 Humphre Street. G Bar and Kitchen at 256 Humphrey Street. Gourmet Garden at 430
Paradise Road. Mission on the Bay at 141 Humphrey Street. Neard Haven at 408 Humphrey Street. Pomona 2 at 128 Humphre Street. Richdale Swamscott at 444 Humphre Street. Sam Walker's American Tavern at 450 Paradise Road. St. John the Baptist Club at 40 Burpie Terrace.
Swampscott Club at 362 Humphrey Street. Swampscott Liquors at 646 Humphrey Street. Swampscott Yach Club at 443 Paradise Road. Tyrific by the Sea Asian Cuisine at 146 Humphrey Street. The BFW Post 1240 at 10 New Ocean Street. and
Vinnon Square Liquors at 371 Paradise Road. And that we would conditionally approve applicants identified as having outstanding compliance items such as unpaid fees, pending inspections, incomplete documentation, outstanding violations, or other unresolved administrative issues. And they're receiving conditional approval tonight
contingent upon resolving all matters to the satisfaction of both the building commissioner and the community development staff no later than December 29th, 2025. Failure to resolve such issues by the deadline will result in an automatic suspension or denial of the license. And that's Mexicali Cantina at
443 Paradise Road and Paradiso restaurant at 15 Railroad A. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I Okay. Uh next on to the common viteller's license. We can start with the outstanding issues. Tim, if you
wouldn't mind. >> Uh similarly highlighted Mexicalei grill and paradiso for this the previously mentioned issues. Um, the other two outstanding issues are Flip the Bird and Whole Foods. Both of them just have submitted applications, but we're waiting on the checks in the mail. >> We don't have the fees.
>> They haven't paid the fees yet. >> Correct. >> Okay, very good. >> Um, so the motion I would entertain for this is a motion to approve the 2026 common vitular licenses as follows and allow select board to a fix electronic signatures. Full approval. The following
applicants have met the statutory requirements, completed all inspections, submitted all necessary documentation, and paid all required fees, and shall receive full repro approval of their 2026 common bachelor's licenses. Andrea's Takaria 646 Humphrey Street. Booberry 160 Humphrey Street. Cafe Avalino 242 Humphrey Street. Captain
Pizza 3 Railroad AB. Chi Asian Cuisine at 435 Paradise Road. Chipotle Mexican Grill at 450 Paradise Road. Cindy Supreb 653 Humphrey Street. Cookie Monster at 505 Paradise Road. Docside Pub and Grill at 286 Humphrey Street. Domino's Pizza
at 4:30 Paradise Road. Duncan at 980 Paradise Road. Five Guys at 980 Paradise Road. G Bar and Kitchen at 256 Humphrey Street. Gourmet Garden at 430 Paradise Road. Little G at 250 Humphrey Street. Jersey Mike Sub at 425 Paradise Road.
Lincoln's Landing at 156 Humphrey Street. Mission on the Bay at 141 Humphre Street. Nord Haven at 408 Humphrey Street. Oyo Frozen Yogurt at 136 Humphrey Street. Panera Bread at 433 Paradise Road. Pomona 2 at 128 Humphrey Street. Popo's Hot Dog/Kell's Cream at
168 Humphrey Street. Kudoba at Mexican Eats at 1016 Paradise Road. Renzo's Pizza at 197 Essex Street. Sam Walker's American Tavern at 450 Paradise Road. Starbucks at 450 Paradise Road. St. John the Baptist Club at 40 Bury Terrace. Swampscott Senior Center at 200 R Essex
Street. Swamps Yach Club at 425 Humphrey Street. Hyriic by the Sea at 146 Humphrey Street. The Beach Club at 80 Shepard Street. 350 at 222 Humphrey Street. Tropical Smoothie Cafe at 450 Paradise Road, Tony Lena Sandwich Shop at 88
Cherry Street, the VFW Post 1240, 10 New Ocean Street, Bolo Craft Pizza at 152 Humphrey Street, and conditional approval. Applicants are identified as having outstanding compliance issues such as unpaid fees and shall receive conditional approval contingent upon
resolving all the outstanding matters to satis satisfaction of the building commissioner and the community development staff no later than December 29th. Failure to resolve such issues by the deadline will result in automatic suspension or denial of the license. Flip the Bird at 450 Paradise Road,
Mexically Cantina and Grill at 443 Paradise Road, Paradiso Restaurant at 15 Railroad AB, and Whole Foods at 331 Paradise Road. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Finally, moving to the
entertainment licenses of which the same four folks are outstanding. I would assume you're going to tell me the same thing, right, Tim? I sure am. >> Okay. So, flip the burden. Whole Foods have yet to pay their fee and Mexicalei
and Paradiso have unresolved issues with the building commissioner. So, the um motion would be I motion to approve the 2026 entertainment license as follows and allow select board to affix electronic signatures. Full approval, meaning applicants have met all the
statutory requirements, paid all the fees um for their entertainment license. Andrea's Takaria 646 Humphrey Street Cafe Avalo 242 Humphrey Street Chi Eisening Chi Asian Cuisine at 435 Paradise Road Cindy Supre at 653
Humphrey Street Docside Public uh 286 Humphrey Street G Bar and Kitchen at 256 Humphrey Street. Gourmet Garden at 430 Paradise Road. Mission on the Bay at 141 Humphrey Street. Nord Haven at 408 Humphrey Street. Pomona 2 at 128 Humphrey Street. Sam Walker's American
Tavern at 450 Paradise Road. St. John the Baptist Club at 40 Burpee Terrace. Swampscott Club at 362 Humphrey Street. Swampscott Yach Club at 425 Humphrey Street. Tyrific by the Sea Asian Cuisine at 146 Humphrey Street. The Beach Club at 80 Shepard A. 350 Bakery at 222
Humphrey Street. The VFW Post 1240 at 8 Pine Street. Um condition. Sorry, I'm just reading and looking for I do not see
G should be on here twice because it has an two entertainment licenses. So it should also say >> little G >> little G at >> 250 Humphrey Street. So that would be
included in the motion. And then conditional approval where applicants are identified as having outstanding compliance items such as unpaid fees or unresolved issues with the either the building commissioner um or community development and they'll receive conditional approval contingent upon
resolving outstanding matters satis to the satisfaction of both building commissioner and the community development office no later than December 29th. Failure to resolve such issues by the deadline will result in automatic suspension or denial of the license. And that is Flip the Bird at 450 Paradise Road, Mexicalei Cantina and
Grill at 443 Paradise Road, Paradiso Restaurant at 15 Railroad AB, and Whole Foods at 331 Paradise Road. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I >> I still think it's ridiculous that we're charging for for televisions, but that's that's my position. We should take that
up, not at the conversation we renew licenses, David, because I don't think you're wrong. Um, it is just a tough conversation to have when we're trying to at the end of the year. >> Absolutely. Understood. >> So maybe we can have >> January 7th then. >> I think maybe we wait till the week
after maybe two. >> I also want to talk about I mean the equity and the fees just to get an understanding. >> Oh jeez. >> The equity and the fees. >> Yeah. Not for tonight. >> Okay. expand on that just so Nick has some direction. >> Uh so you have large establishments
paying the same fee, a similar fee to an establishment maybe that's onethird the size. >> Okay. So maybe taking a look at some neighboring peers or super peers and see how they handle >> common vigilers and um entertainment.
Make sure we're sort of in line. Um >> okay, >> that would be great. Thanks. Thank you, Marzy and Tim. >> Thanks, Tim. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving on to item three on the agenda, which is an update on ARPA
funds. >> So, at the last meeting, we had a brief discussion about following the Kleinfelder presentation about uh potentially participating in additional work with Kleinfelder in the city of Lynn. Can you put up the slide, the
first one? And so one of the requests I think was for a rundown of the opera funds. It's two quick slides. I think you have them both in front of you. The first one is the local fiscal recovery funds which are the ones that were completely at your uh in your control and have to be expended at the end of
this calendar year. Um it lists all the decisions that were made previously there. I don't know how much detail we really want to go to. These are not things that we can change at this point. But I wanted to give you the rundown of where the funds went in the larger buckets here. And as you can see, thank
you. Um, what does it say at the top? The last vote that you all took on this was December 30th of 24 to um, make sure that everything was obligated and able to move forward and be expended and we are almost completely there. Patrick's
confident that we will spend all of it. >> So that 5% is that what we're talking >> that's sort of the last of bills to come in. There might be some that would get returned, but we're very close to expending it all on the items that were required. >> Can you send us out the breakdown of what's still out there
>> in that 5%? >> Yeah, sure. I don't have it in front of me, but I'll be happy to send it. >> And then in the event that 5% looks like it might not get spended, what's the what's the day we have to pull the trigger to move it into another category? >> I we've already missed the day to
category. It needs to be expended by the end of this year. So the movement of it was last year >> by the end of 2024. That's what we did. >> Uh I don't think that's quite technically correct. >> Yeah. Okay. Um >> it's not my understanding >> that what we were advised would be wrong
was that um we established the categories and if they were unexpended funds of a relatively dimminimous amount they could be moved around within the established categories >> the buckets we had already established. >> Yeah. >> Then again we could have been given
>> Thank you for that clarification. what I just said. Okay. >> So, I I'll look into that with that. >> Whatever. Yeah. I mean, >> so it's within the buckets that exist as opposed to finding a new bucket. So, that is what I was missing in my inarticulate response to the first question.
>> We cannot identify new buckets to change it to. We can move between and amongst that's what I'll talk to Patrick about. >> Okay. >> Right. >> But we don't even know if we're going to really have one expended, but >> I I I do not think that it will be significant, but I will make sure that we talk about it tomorrow. So, so Nick,
so we have, you know, so everything has been spoken for and allocated, but what has actually been spent, not spent as of today? >> In this first slide, that last 5% is what has not been spent. Everything else has
>> I have that I don't have. I have the large number here. I don't know. So, you're saying like the big picture. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I do see the big picture. >> Okay. Got it. So, it's about $220,000 roughly, right? >> I can get it for you, David. >> No, no, no, no.
>> No, no, no. I I was I was literally just looking at the and I Yeah, I missed you. >> I missed the pie chart. >> Okay, got it. Okay. >> Missed the forest from the trees. >> Okay. Um I think the one that is more useful for discussion tonight is the second slide,
>> right? This is the two and a half that was the earmark that came through the state which gives us a little more flexibility um as as we've talked about in terms of you know you all just the airmark was I believe for King's Beach
improvement or the improvement of water quality Kings Beach it was a very broad category uh that would include both the work that has already been spent uh and you participated in with the city of Lynn but also the IDE and other things they all fall into that broad description. We talked to Bill and Eric
about this on the accounting side to make sure that you know eyes were dotted, tees were crossed where all the spending is appropriate where we are here in this breakdown. What I wanted to show you there was a question about the peer review funds. These are here. Uh that's right. That's number one up there. I wanted to make sure you all
knew that. The UV pilot cost 300,000 also is living here. The the phase 2 and 2A things um are what I wanted to highlight for you all. If the will of the board was to participate in phase 1 A that Kleinfelder suggested when they were here two weeks ago, which is a
roughly $75,000 expense, >> phase 1 A of the UV, >> phase 1 A, it's the next phase >> of the pilot thing, >> correct? That it was the next steps that they highlighted at the end of their presentation. There had originally been a phase one and a phase two. Phase one
was broad and included things that both in the discussion internally where it was um Gino, Liz, myself and others on our side, the mayor, Lynwater, Sue, other we we on the Swanscott side communicated that we thought it was a little too broad because it was speaking directly to citing a permanent facility.
It was talking about the design of a permanent facility. There were sort of steps that we thought we were not at yet. uh you all expressed two weeks ago that you want to if there were if there was any opportunity at all to do this it would require that we were focused on things that were gathering data that's broadly applicable is the best way I
would describe it so it it would ultimately uh support Kleinfelder's work as they had described but it also would help us understand flow and design uh in future um investment that we may make in Stacy's Brook or anything else like that so the sort of narrowed down scope that
they have now is Uh just make sure I don't miss anything. >> Before you go there, Nick, if I may interrupt you. >> The only thing out of this that is ostensibly really at play are not committed at this point is the peer review money.
>> So is that correct? We have there's taken any steps to actually obtain a peer review at this point. >> Correct. >> We have not. >> Okay. But we have like the phase two IDE and design that's done like right. We're completing design so that it can go to
bid. It's it's 99% done if it's not completely spent. Correct. Right. Right. >> The 1.5 million is not literally spent yet. >> Correct. >> That is the logical next step. >> The 1.5 million also has a capital appropriation that exists.
>> Appropriation. So if we wanted to spend some capital versus taking it all from this bucket, we we would have the flexibility to do that. So, if we want to So, let's just So, if we want to use taxpayer dollars, >> we can use taxpayer dollars or we can use this ARPA money. Let's let's be
really clear when we're talking about this stuff. This is using the 1.5 is giving relief to the taxpayer. But let's also be clear though that am I under the understanding that didn't someone say that 2A is construction? We
might not need to spend all that we had allocated. Is that correct? Didn't Gino say something to that effect? >> I think that was Kleinfelder >> or Kleinfelder said it two weeks ago >> and it it was that they believe under 2A we could complete all of the work that is in that and future
>> in future and future. >> So we instead of it being 2A and 2B it would only be 2A. >> We might be able to get everything. >> We're going to spend 1.5 million no matter what in we might not need a next >> they might not send more than the 2.5. >> It was 2B or not 2B.
>> Right. Right. >> That is the question. Wow, that was well played by both of you. Um, so yes, the the 75 if we I would say 77 because it's it's between 75 and 77 total if we were
to move forward with this phase 1A next steps that were you have a question. >> Yeah. What's the what's this complimentary strategies report? What is that? >> That's one spent. >> Yeah, >> that was that was what was that though? That was the report way back when that
we laid out in concert with Lynn about UV and the pipe and all the other different >> I don't think that was with Lynn. I think we paid for that >> totally >> full amount totally without >> Okay. >> Okay. But but okay, if we want to be
super clear. Yes, we did. But then we negotiated openly publicly to only pay $300,000 for the UV because Yes. Yes. >> So, all things said, we're even now. Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry. I'm I apologize for my opening that can >> put it back in.
So anyway, so that's basically what I'm trying I'm trying to point out is like really all this money except for I suppose the 1.5 million which is a big amount is spent or highly targeted >> and it's really if we wanted to do
anything more in the further research phase that could be applied to UV or other things. It's really coming out of this peerreview bucket primarily. >> Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. >> Well, no. Yeah, I I think we're sort of that's six in one half test. If the peer
review became I I understood your pres your comments two weeks ago is saying the peer review was important to make sure we move forward with >> not me >> not you p as a as a board. >> So I would actually say >> that was me said that sorry I would say
I would say it's that 100 or a small portion of the 1.5 is where that would come from. >> Okay. Okay. And I'll just say, you know, that I am adamantly opposed to not spending that 1.5 for pipe work. Um, so
that's why I categorize it as we've said that over and over and over again. You can make the debate about whether or not we're going to spend it capital versus here, I suppose. Um, >> and and that's what I'm suggest I'm suggesting that there's the opportunity to take some of these costs and assign them somewhere else with a cap. There is
a capital uh appropriation that exists where you could put some of it. That's >> So wait, I'm really confused. So wait a minute. >> You don't want to spend 1.5. You don't want to spend the 1.5 that we've already approved. You want to spend it. You agree? >> All right. >> Yeah. >> You want to spend that? >> Absolutely.
>> Okay. But but what's on the table right now, what what I think we're trying to be thoughtful about is if the uh I don't want to call it the second phase of the UV pilot because I think that >> I think we should call it
>> I don't want to call I want to call her I want to call it the next step of which will provide data which can be used towards the pilot but can also be used for other mechanisms for us to understand flow and potential costs if
pilot comes to the table, right? Um >> or confirmation pipe work is actually being is successful >> is successful, right? If if there if there's some work that can be done and it's we're talking about you said 75,000. >> Yes. >> 75,000
>> up to 77,000 just to be >> 77. Let's call it 77 clear. >> Okay. So up to 77K then what you would be saying potentially is 1.423 423 million would be going to phase 2A work
and an appropriation of $77,000 would be used from our budget to cover the remainder of the $1.5 million work that would be that would be done. So you're not saying you're taking the entirety of the $ 1.5 million and moving
it to the taxpayer to burden the taxpayer. You are really taking $77,000 and moving it from ARPA to >> you could do that. Absolutely. But why are we not I mean are we really going to do this peer review? Why are we not >> That's a great question. Are we That's
what we really need talking about. >> So to this point we have not done it. Number one >> the I as I understood last week that when I talked to Gino after the meeting it was that I wanted to make sure we were moving forward with that. If again if that's not the will and it appears to
be there's some disagreement >> have a conversation >> then that that would be a great place to take it from as you suggested vice chair >> I I I don't have the technical expertise to make that judgment. I mean, we, you know, this was a question back in the
day, uh, a reasonable one, uh, eons ago, um, you know, about whether or not we felt like we were fully satisfied with the work that Kleinfelder was doing or if we wanted a second opinion about it. I frankly don't I think it really came up and you can speak to it because it
was really more your idea u more about the various options as opposed to like were they giving us the best uh program about IDE right wasn't this kind of in the context of the >> the outfall or the UV or are they really
kind of assessing all the options correctly I I don't do you >> I mean I I don't I don't recall exactly the context but I think a my question is always when you work with somebody for a very long time on very similar projects.
Everybody becomes very comfortable. The players all know each other and things all sort of blur together. And is there a chance that when you bring somebody new to the table, the way you look at it changes? The way you see things is a little bit different or you might push
harder in one area that folks are ruling out right now or a blind spot for people because of how long they've been working together. So to me it just felt like is there an opportunity to you know have more efficiency a different thought process
um or sight in a blind spot >> just a double it's just a double check double check >> it's just a double check before I mean it's a luxury I'm not going to say it's like >> we're spending millions and millions and millions of taxpayer dollars we're raising we're raising water and sewer rates we're we're allocating we're
allocating ARPA funds I mean if we >> financially responsible >> if we made a decision if we made a decision to do this. I I think we should be moving forward with >> you know the other the other question was to have another set of eyes really looking at our overall strategy and the way we're going back and doing the ID
work. Is this what is this what another company would actually recommend too? Because you know we seem to be at one point we were going around a certain area and it was coming up and then failing and coming up and failing. You know, last last time we were here, we got really good news that things were
better, but at the time when we when this came up, there was a lot of failures. There's a lot of questions. What's really going on here? I I think it's a really good safeguard to double check to make sure that to make sure that we are going in the right >> but let's let's also go back to this
$77,000 request. So, you know, we've had numerous discussions over the last several years about, you know, the fact that we're, you know, we're going to spend this money. We can fix our pipes, but we're still likely going to need a complimentary supplement supplemental
solution to to have the beach open 90 plus% of the time, 95 unless it just does not rain all summer. Um, the the beach will be closed as a result of uh of of these kinds of impacts. um you know due to rain which we saw
>> during the 59 days. >> None of this is going to solve the rain issue. >> Correct. No. Yes. So my my question is whether we move forward with the UV or whether we move forward with an outfall. Is this 77,000 dollars? Is this useful in the UV and
the outfall or just for the UV? >> I'm not an engineer, but let me answer the question. Number number one, one of the things is the continued conversations with the regulators because we have not gotten meaningful feedback from D and EPA to understand what they think of UV. doing sediment
testing, flow testing, wet wet weather, targeted wet weather testing, those would all inform any solution because as an example, the sediment testing I think was discussed um I've had conversations, but I think last week even if it turns out that there's something after the UV
system or some other solution that's causing the exceedences without doing sediment testing and without understanding the flow, we we are less likely to find that in a time frame that makes it useful to us. Uh so doing the sediment testing, understanding the flow
now and the wet weather flow now would inform multiple potential solutions. Having the conversations with D and EPA help us understand whether or not we could even move to something where we're talking about a permanent site. We're a permanent solution that is built
somewhere or UV versus um outflow or whatever. So it can inform all of those things. And that was sort of the that was the feedback that we gave to Kleinfelder when we were trying to narrow the scope to say like what are things that if we're sitting here saying
we're unsure that this is the solution for us, what are the things that we can be doing that could potentially inform that if everyone were to come to some agreement in the future or could also inform alternative solutions. >> Got it. And there was and just a followup to that um when Courtney was here at our last meet. Courtney,
>> I think so. >> From Kleinfelder when she was here, she mentioned that we had actually paid for some of these services that were not >> actually received and they were hoping that there was a credit that was going to be applied. Um, do we have any idea of the of the of the quantification of
that of that credit and could that credit be used for some of this future for >> I'd have to check. I I'm not certain. The the way she described it to that I that I heard her that night was that credit was sort of built into what was build and not build already. So let I can check. I don't have
>> I didn't hear that but either but yeah if we can if we can just verify that I think that would be that would be helpful for me making making this decision to allocate uh additional funds. >> So I guess slightly to recap. So it sounds like
there's a a sense that we should do the peer review. I'm I'm ambivalent about that frankly at this point. Um but uh >> why >> why am I amin? >> Yeah. >> Um I understand it conceptually. It sounds conceptually brilliant. Yeah.
>> Um but >> thank you. >> Uh but on a practical matter, you know, >> there's there's pros and cons, right, to Kleinfelder and how deep they are in this, right? >> They know literally our pipes like
inside and out, right? And our system inside and out. And we've seen in some other matters how expensive it is to get a reasonable second opinion. I I'm not sure $100,000 would really get you a
very thorough second opinion. Um so until I saw an actual scope and showed kind of literally what's being evaluated, I'm not convinced that the there's probably some expression here. the um it's worth it. Um or or that it
wouldn't that's one right there. The juice is worth the squeeze. Um or or if you need a lot more juice to really really >> get that second opinion. >> So, but putting that aside, um >> assuming that we do want to still pursue
that, um I do think it would be it would be much better if we were sitting here looking at a proposed scope of work. we're verbally talking about it. Um, and what you've described, Nick, I'm with you. Like first seven points, but then you
get into the last three points and I'm a little bit wishy-washy uh about like the fact of oh, but then maybe like the regulators and about a UV and about the sighting and and these other things. And I'm like, oh, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. >> The sighting's off the table, right? So
the there there are not seven things in the what I described as the 1A scope. It is sediment testing, wet water, flow testing in contact with the regulators to try to get wholesome feedback. The other things are what we moved and said we do not want them to be doing. We do
not want permanent sighting discussion now. We don't want permanent, you know, design on what that permanent solution might look like. Those are things that we asked them to set aside and they did to narrow the scope. So it's wet weather flow I mean it's flow testing wet weather targeted wet
weather testing sediment testing in contact with the regulators that's that is the scope. >> Okay. So the the contact with regulators to what end about UV? >> We still need to get an actual actual wholesome feedback on the we provided EPA and D and the answer was sort of we
need to continue the conversation. Thank you for your information. Didn't the EPA didn't the EPA comment back saying don't re what didn't the EPA have something pretty serious? >> One of our public commenters read an email, right? But we don't understand the context what of that what that email was. So it would be great if we did.
>> So we have to go through Kleinfelder to get that response. >> No, but they would be a necessary part of those conversations. >> I my my to Doug's point, my hesitation here is Kleinfelder. I have to say it. I I don't know how much more money we can give Kleinfelder to tell us information
that none of us can figure out on our own. It just seems like there has to be another player in this game that can give us some feedback in terms of what Kleinfelder has done for us already, right? I mean, and that's your squeeze and your juice and whatnot. Maybe we
don't have the juice for it. I don't know. >> Actually, I think I was making the opposite point, but that's okay. >> Were you? >> So, that's my concern is that it's Kleinfelder Kleinfelder all day, right? We don't have any other reference point other than what they sell us, tell us, or guide us towards, right? How do we
know that any of that is we don't know? We don't know any of it. We're relying on them for everything pretty much. >> I would just caution that I think we're conflating this request with the fact that Kleinfelder does a ton of work in town. And I agree with what you're
saying and have talked to Gino like there's other firms that do similar work that we could spread it around or find someone else to do certain. I wouldn't want that concern that you have to be what stops us solely from moving forward with this when this is an opportunity to get information that we think can be
useful in multiple ways and >> and theoretically this $77,000 can be done by someone else, >> right? >> Sure. not not Kleinfelder, >> you know, that has a different view, right? That is coming in clean without this like
>> you know historical view that Kleinfelder has. Granted, they might know our pipes in and out, but to that end, do they also know what they can and can't sell us? Well, I guess the only part that I would push back on there is to say if you're going to have a com if you're going to have commentary to the regulators,
>> you're going to need the folks who did >> the work to come forward and probably explain, answer questions. >> Well, we already have that. They've already >> part of the fee that in the 77,000 is having them come to the table in these conversations and engage in meaningful
conversation, right? Shouldn't they have to explain what they've done without the 77,000? I mean, we've given them countless dollars to do this work. >> The short answer is no. They wouldn't have to come to a meeting if we get a meeting with the commissioner D and they were not under contract.
>> Maybe they wouldn't have to come, but they would we would be able to provide all of the work they've already done, >> documentation. I think speak to it, >> right? >> Yeah. But I'm just I just think like for most efficient effective conversation to have them there is probably helpful
and you're going to have to pay them to be there. >> And I I think there's two separate things. One, the $100,000 related to the peer review. Obviously, when we were having conversations about peer review, we were in a different situation, right? A year ago, if you think about it, we
had all these hot spots on Lower Banks and some issues on Walker and a bunch of other places and they couldn't find it and they were sort of it felt like chasing tails a little bit. Like it felt like they were going in circles and we couldn't get anywhere. >> While I don't want to lose sight of
there is still perhaps a responsible answer to still going forward in peer review, we are not in that place today. today and what we heard last week um or two weeks ago was you know the work that we we had identified some real issue
points which we managed and they created effective change in those hotspots. So we feel like we put and that doesn't mean we won't come to another hot spot but but maybe the nature of some of this work is such that some things are easier to find than other things. And no matter
who the player is, we're going to be trying to figure out where the lateral is or where the break is or where the um what is it called? Uh dis elicit discharge is coming from. So in that mindset, I don't I am open to
conversation about taking about understanding a scope of work related to the peerreview and how that might play into today's situation versus a year ago situation because the fact of the matter is we didn't do this in a year and the information that we could have possibly ascertained a year ago is maybe not the
information we're even looking for now to understand is this is Kleinfelder the right player? Are we going in the right direction? Are there any things that we're missing or that we should be looking at? So, I would like to understand a scope of work related to the peer review separate and apart. And
if $100,000 can get us what we want, if it can't, then maybe it's money well spent somewhere else. If it's now $50,000 because we solved a bunch of other problems that we don't need to chase down anymore, that's important to know since we're looking for funds to spend.
The secondary piece I think is whether or not the $77,000 towards the 1A conversation out of UB pilot with Kleinfelder is money that is going to be well spent. I
see arguments both ways. I think taking anything related to permanent UV pilot out of the picture is the only thing that made me open to this thought because I don't want I we're not I'm not there yet. I don't think that Kleinfelder would say we're there yet.
We can't even confirm that D and the regulators are willing to be there yet. So why are we even going there yet? what we can do and what is beneficial to us and maybe puts us in a financial uh
realistic financial dis uh ability to make a realistic financial decision on future matters is flow data because if we know how much of the flow is ours and we understand how much of that is
better or worse based on the IDE work we're doing then we come to the table with the city of Lynn and we say hey the flow No data shows we're at n we're at 9010 or we're at 7030 or we're at 50/50 >> or whatever the data show >> whatever the data shows we're able to
come to the table with more information so that we are not >> but again we have to be confident in the data right and who gets us the data Kleinfelder gets us the data I just you know what I mean I don't how do I know the data is what it is or what Kleinfelder wants it to be you know what
I mean this whole thing is so we're so deep into this No. Uh, so I >> Well, only because we we requested public comment to happen in the beginning. I I think it's not >> I know, but I I understand. I appreciate
it, but >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Go ahead, Daniel. >> Keep talking, Daniel. >> So, so my to my point, I don't know. I just Yeah, that's just my thought. Like I I I'm just I'm not so confident, right, in
after listening to and there and this is not a knock against Kleinfelder you after listening to the presentation about the UV all the challenges they face the things they didn't anticipate the seaweed all of it you I just >> I just don't have that much confidence
but we don't have to decide Kleinfellow here >> right >> we're going to put out a bid right >> they can bid someone else can bid >> yeah right >> right >> right >> we just need to determine if we're if it's worth it to flow test, sediment test, wet weather test, and and have communications with the regulators. >> And so I would just say uh the
communication with the regulators I don't get right now. Um so I'll just maybe other people feel like we should do that, but I don't I don't get that part because it doesn't feel like we're at that stage right now. >> We need to understand what their feedback is. So we are >> about the about what the UV. >> The UV. Yes. >> I don't care what their feedback is
about the U. That's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in their feedback about the UV. >> Okay. >> Does any So here here's a big question. >> I'm not looking about doing anything. >> Does anybody Is there anybody at this table that sees us being able to invest millions and millions and millions of
dollars in a UV facility within the next 10 years? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. So, if we don't No, hold on a second. If we do not see if if you do not see
>> that happening, why are we spending any more dollars whatsoever? I I was very good last week. I didn't say a word. I honestly felt that spending $300,000 was not in our best interest. We spent the 300. We have the results.
We also have comments that we should be able to have these pipes lined and secured by 2027. We are on a march to tighten this up. So, I just would like to see every penny possible put into these pipes and tighten them up and get
a strict IDE work regimen in there and and really do our part. That's how that's how I see it. So I think did we did we say resoundingly last time that we didn't feel like to answer your question we could even none of us could
fathom putting a UV plant or treatment facility to the tune of millions of dollars in this town. Did we not say that we did? >> So I I'm to Doug's point I'm not sure why we're even on this >> well path. >> So could I just share like >> now you can go.
>> It's fine. Sorry to interrupt you. Like when we're talking about if that even was the answer and if there is an appetite to do it. Number one, I would assume that this is to a comment David's made a few times. It would be a regional solution which would necessarily include state participation. I just I don't see
a scenario in which the two communities alone would pay for something like that. I agree with you 100%. That being said, without flow data, you don't know if it needs to be the size of a sheet of paper or a legal like the sizing. >> But no one's debating the flow flow thing. debating the flow. >> Well, that's part of the part without
>> But no, it's part of it. But the the thing we're objecting to is your last bullet about talking to regulators, >> right? >> The flow. Maybe Dave is fine with that. But I'm just saying like that the first three all the data collection. Great. Because to me that
>> that tailor are we really successful with the pipes or not. I'm not saying I know that that's the end of the story and that's absolutely the holy grail, >> right? >> But it certainly seemed like we were closer or right on the march. >> Uh so if we kept focus on that, that's a
possible full solution. >> Yeah, >> we've always been like, well, we need to kind of hedge our bets. We need the complimentary. >> I'm not sure. And I'm just saying I want to pause about all these other distractions and I want to know definitively and tailor that data collection solely about making sure it
is ironclad clear whether or not the solution can be the pipes and that includes the downstream piece. >> Remember that piece too >> post treatment >> the post treatment like what okay so that's that's the point
>> so it sounds like we're all in agreement. Well, Marielen, maybe we haven't heard your point of view, but I think the four Okay, so maybe we have the four of us are in agreement that the three bullet points that you've listed >> seem >> so further skinning it >> seems great.
>> Yeah. >> What I think it would might be good is if you came back to us to understand how much of the $77,000 is attributed to conversations with the regulators. Are we talking about right >> a thousand? Are we talking about 70,000? just let us understand what that portion
is and what that actually maybe is >> what it gets you what it gets us. >> Yeah. I don't it's not so much about the dollars whe it's 10,000 or that's not the issue. It's more about staying staying clear on what we're trying to solve. >> So if I me could ask well if you're
comfortable 77 are you comfortable with less is the real question. So if we were to go back and say it's four bullets we want three. >> Are you guys willing to do this? Yes. know like so if there is an appetite for
that it would be I think easier if you could express that appetite tonight to say you know data collection yes regulators no that that should just be you know Nick Jared and the elected officials trying to get in touch with D
and EPA but authorize that now knowing that I will not agree to something that includes the regulators which means in January it would be I'm coming back to say we couldn't come to an agreement you know it was regulators
are bust and so that would be the feedback in the future as it would be easier for me if you say like go forth we're comfortable Go ahead David I'm sorry >> no no no I I still don't understand why we wouldn't want to hear from from the regulators as to whether the what their
what their opinion is of the UV if the UV if the regulators say the UV is is not worth pursuing that comes off the table. >> I understand. >> Then we then we >> But if we've already taken off the table, why do we have to waste our time being distracted with something we don't want to do? >> The fact of the matter might may very
well be that we come back and say Swamcott's willing to join you for three of these full four bullet points. So if half of this you figure out what the regulators piece is and you city of Lynn cover that on your own and Swamcot will cover half of these three bullet points
or whatever it is like I don't there's a compromise to be had it sounds like and that should just be the conversation that we have if you're looking for us to motion something that like that tonight. >> I don't know that you necessarily need to vote. Okay. >> And >> but I think that's that's what we just go back and if you want
>> but I I I wouldn't >> I think I think we made ourselves pretty clear. But >> I'm not I'm just not sold on why these bullet points are really important. But I mean maybe I'm I don't understand I just don't have an understanding of it. And I would like to ask a couple of the
members of the Water Sewer Commission their opinion on it so I'd have a better understanding. But right now, I I just have a hard time wanting to spend any pennies at all on anything other than fixing our pipes >> because fixing our pipes is not going to clean the beach. It's not going to open
it up. It's not going to open up King's Beach. That it it >> we've heard this We've heard this over and over. >> I'm not sure I'd buy that. And I I don't see us I don't I don't see us building a facility to >> I don't >> to to do what you think we can possibly
do. I honestly don't see us building a a UV facility either. So, I mean, I I thought I thought it makes sense for us to have communications with the regulators, have the regulators give us give us an opinion on the on the on the UV, and that that then directs
potentially the city of Lynn to say, "Hey, you know what? This UV is off the table. Let's move forward with another complimentary solution." The fact is, you know, we're looking at, you know, if they if they say no, Then what? >> But let's >> then we have to speak back, guys.
>> We don't we don't know. We're not going to we're never going to know unless I mean we're just literally saying, "Oh, no. We don't we don't want to we don't want to see it or hear it." >> Well, no. That that's making it sound like we're >> No, we're I'd say Okay, I've said enough. >> Yeah. Is it reasonable to assume that the regulators and every time I hear
this, I think of I really do. Um the regulators will tell us not necessarily about UV or what it will they tell us what it will take right to remove the consent decree like what it doesn't only have to be UV is my point
right is there would they suggest something else I don't know this organization sounds like God if no one can speak to them yeah if that is what they've said I mean so what else do we need from them right what other conversations need to be had if they've already told us what it is we need to
Just because we don't want to have the conversation doesn't mean the conversation won't be had, >> right? >> It just means we're not going to pay for it. >> So, I don't I don't know what information we could like benefit from by having that, right? It doesn't, right? >> I can't see the value. I don't know. But maybe there is and I just don't know it.
>> I just feel like we're in a different mindset because of the IDT work and the success we've seen in town due to the IDT work. So, we're just >> we feel like we're on the right path and we're almost at the end. So, it's hard to >> say, "Oh, But then who knows a year from now we might have this conversation
again and have a different perspective because we did the 2A >> work they told us so I just want to highlight they did say that that when we get to the end of 2A it might be that they say like there's this area that actually is still hot. >> Yeah. >> At least we have more information to make that >> and we've got 1.5 million here and we've
got another 1.5 million capital and we've got an SRF loan that we've got lined up as well and so we've got plenty of money to finish this work and then keep going after hotspots. >> Yeah. So just to be clear, it's a skinnier further skinny this it'll be >> testing sediment wet weather literally
just the testing not the conversation. >> I will talk to folks tomorrow. >> Okay, great. >> And is there any any other >> What about the peer review? Let's be really clear to Nick about that because I because originally I was very hot on the peer review. I think like I said
given where we are now, I I request a proposed scope of work for that $100,000 and what that would be looking at. I I would I would respectfully ask >> for you to dumb down what the peer review is so that I I'm going to say it. I and everybody of the seven people
>> plus one that are listening understand exactly what we're talking about when we say peer review. Okay, in this case, >> I think what's really important in the peer review is that you want to be able to come back and have somebody else to say you're you're on the right you're on the right path. keep up what you're
doing or you're take a different take a detour here and just want a rubber stamp. >> The 100,000 for a peer review equals >> So it's for I just want to ask a question though. It's for both IDE and UV peer review or just >> no just ID.
I'm not trying to make it worse. I made a note to myself and I wanted to ask it so it doesn't go on set. Okay. >> This is why I asked to dumb it down. Yep. >> No, just this is just our work that we've been doing in town alone. I will work on a scope with >> you remove that UV. >> Well, it has to be just in this section
because it's the 2.5 Stacy Brook, >> right? >> Just the work that affects the Stacy Brook portion because that's the condition of the 2.5 million, right? That it affects Stacy. Stop talking. >> We will we will draft it to >> answer. >> We have to we we have to or else it's
not the correct allocation of the funds that were allocated to us. So, >> we will be certain that it represents and connects to the allocations that were made. We had a long conversation with Eric and Bill to make sure that any of this discussion would fit into that. So we will continue to be cognizant of that
>> and and also we have to spend the money's the monies the money by the end of next year. Correct. So the scope has to be attainable to be executionable by the end of next year. So that's also a factor >> that actually circles back to the initial conversation about do we need to
spend this 1.5 million out of this versus the capital. >> This has to be spent next year, >> right? So it's another reason why we need to spend it out of here >> even though yeah have >> totally agree and but it's also why we thought if there was a need to cleave off a small portion we could still spend
down all of it and you know like but yes to we're cognizant of that as well. >> Are you going to make the argument about the regulators now? >> No it's not >> I want to make a joke about the song. I want to make a joke about the song but >> RNG will be here next week. Fine. >> All righty. So >> peer review just to be clear it's not about extending the pier.
>> Yes. Right. That's why I'm saying >> God forbid Doug E. >> I'm saying too we're moving on my friends to >> so >> Nope. >> Go ahead, Doug. >> No, sorry. >> The Yeah, we are moving on. The next one is just my request for
>> guidance from you all at a very high level in >> guidance from us. I do. >> I don't know. >> I do. >> Yeah, we do any UV. >> Do we have our goals somewhere in the packet? >> No. No, this was I >> it was >> No, I said are we supposed to remember
cuz remember we wrote them all out. >> Yeah, we had a nice little graph. >> I think tonight at least. Okay, I bet you have >> my request tonight at least was that >> you have a picture? >> Yeah, >> that and we can find the picture maybe and put it up on the screen even.
>> Okay, I guarantee you >> I don't think I do. I don't know. Do I >> search whiteboards? So my request is as we're starting the budget process with staff in a much broader way going into the new year is understanding priorities, service levels, strategic
goals that you all and it can just be like point me back to the list that you put together and that can be how we do this. But particularly around service levels and staffing like we're obviously going to be very cognizant of limiting or not creating new positions. Like that's a a goal of ours from you know
from the outset. Um, but you know, staffing is a big driver. Uh, and being creative about regional opportunities. I'm actually meeting Thatcher next week. I've had continuing conversations with Allison. We're Allison and I have kicked around a few different ideas. I It's not going to balance the budget on this
alone, but we're certainly being creative and open to anything that might be out there. Um, you know, service delivery, the what you want us to protect, what's most important. Um, and the idea of level service versus level funding is something that we could conceivably
think about and maybe come back to you with showing you two options of like this is what the impact would look like if we say level funding is the most important thing or stay completely within um or what does it look like when we stay completely within the policies? How does that impact service levels? Uh
but part of what I was hoping to get from you all tonight is you know if there were any particular services parts of town government that are most important that you want us to be cognizant of where if there's some difficult decisions to make and coming back to you that we try to make some of them in advance highlight them explain
to you how we came to the conclusions uh but just like general direction from you all on you know it's primarily level service level fund but the impacts and where you want us to be looking knowing that revenue and expenditure we
are in the red already uh most likely you know so >> there's a number of different ways and different things we can bring back to you but I wanted to sort of ask from your for your guidance on what it is you would like to see from us what those goals and priorities might be in terms of service levels and and parts of town
government that you think would be most important to prioritize as we make those difficult decisions >> I have one thought but I'm happy to yield to the chair >> no I would love it if you want first because if your thought is my thought. I don't have to say it. >> Um,
>> oh that >> I do think we did spend time going through the goals. So I think that from my perspective should be the the core of the frame that you're using. >> Um out of that one thing comes to mind. It feels like
I think it would be very difficult to go for level funding versus level service. Um it's probably going to be some blend, but >> I imagine it's gonna be very difficult to
stay away from level service. Um, but I hope, you know, open to creative thinking, but I think that's going to be a lot of tweaking around the edges. Um, the thing that comes to mind is like the
the the unused or subused property thing that came up a lot in a lot of our goals. And it's a one-time, I'll admit readily, it's a kind of a one-time patch perspective, but since we are in this
like trough that we hope we'll be coming out of in a couple years uh with new growth, is there even like one piece of town property that we could focus in on that we don't need and could actually
>> sell such that we would be raising a significant amount of money in the relative near term. >> And are you suggesting to apply that to the operating budget? >> It sounds like it just want to be clear though. >> What's that?
>> I said I think that's what he suggested. I just want that's why I asked to be >> if possible in certain ways or somehow or whatever like there's um >> so my personal opinion but I take direction from you all is I do not want to balance the budget onetime revenue. I
it's >> I I understand >> if the trough extends a year if it's worse than we expect if something goes wrong that we aren't can't foresee it's I mean of all the of all the financial policies that I think we might be open to having a discussion about that would
be one that I think very broadly people in the my short time here would not be in favor of it it is a very >> depends on the property >> but but if we have if we if we have stuff that's sitting around not being used >> and we're being good stewards of the
fact that like not only are we not using something but we're incurring costs or maintenance or utilities or whatever it is. You can categorize it as, you know, selling something to balance the budget on a one-time, you know, sale. Or you could say we're actually kind of disposing of things we don't need and
then we're creating funds that are going to drop to free cash effectively and will be useful to us. Maybe it's not the right time frame, but if we don't start that process, then it'll never yield a benefit for us, >> right? I I just mean like something I
would see it be more important to spend on other capital assets that we do need, want, and >> it's fine, right? Yeah. >> But I think to Doug's point, I mean, through our goals, that that property discussion was a common theme, right? So
that was something that a couple of us had mentioned >> in that goal spreadsheet that we were looking at. I know that you and I were um properties in town, maybe underutilized properties in town. And I think that this is definitely the time to inventory them, right? And just see
what we're looking at. I mean, to be quiet, even though we're three and a half miles there, there's a lot of property that people don't think about as often, right, that could be sitting that are that is sitting. I mean, it's there's Clark School and there's, you know, >> Earl Street, whatever. There's stuff out
there that the town owns, right? So getting a good working knowledge of you know what our plan is for each of these properties maybe there is something we can consider you know ob to your point though I know it's not good financial practice to sell you know an asset right to satisfy one year of a budgetary
crunch but um I think that we still need to know like our portfolio of property like where is some you know what should we be looking at what could we consider out of the box thinking maybe it is something >> and you know >> and my thought on goals was to come back
in January after I've been here for three months to say here here's what we can do here's what we have done. I actually would argue that this conversation is separate from what I'm asking for in budget guidance. >> Okay. >> We do need to do it because it's a goal that you you all priority prioritize and
make sure that we do have a list of surplus property or potential surplus property. >> Yeah. >> I it's not that is not a it's not a good way for us to >> budgeting. Right. >> So, I think it's a dual track where yes, we need to do that because the five of you sat here and went through
>> a long meeting and identified things and that was a common theme. >> Y >> I don't necessarily agree that it's >> relative to like >> So, the question you're asking tonight, right? >> Yeah. >> How do you want me to be thinking about this as I talk to town staff? >> Okay. >> Well, I'm not even sure if we can if if
if we sold anything if we could apply those proceeds to >> I don't think they fall to free cash. I think they fall to future land acquisitions. So, until we have clarification there, >> I mean, I I I want I' I'd want to certainly have uh clarification uh
there, but we should check in with um with the director of community and economic development. I believe this was an exercise that we that we dove into maybe three, four, maybe five years ago. Um we looked at this uh this is how Pine
Street uh came to be. Yeah. Pine Street came to be through uh through an identification process of town-owned and for sale parcels. Uh so I think a lot of that information already exists. >> Yep. >> Uh so so that's that's one thing I was looking at my goals. Um I don't think I
was in attendance at the uh at the meeting, but something else that that I had thought about was um you know, we had you know, we had looked at our at our budget and we had looked at you know how you know how much how much we had been expending. Uh, I know the legal
line had been over the last few years. Insurance had been up. Can we look at potentially RFPing um our legal services for the town of Swampskit? Uh, maybe that gives us some relief. Um, you know, I know insurance was something
that we had also looked at. What's the timing there? >> Right, >> Danielle? Property or health? >> GIC. >> GIC. Yeah, >> I think we have to give them a one year notice. >> We're locked into GIC. we have to give the one-year notice of potentially going out. >> And I have started the conversation with
a consultant that helps communities that self-insure and they also offer consulting services with GIC. >> It is it's not a silver bullet to get out of GIC because we have to have a trust that can carry these expenses and so >> abs again that's one of the things that
we can absolutely look at. But I know on insurance for property, they they have gone out in the last 18 months to work with a new vendor. >> We do that. >> Um, and if you all direct me, I'm happy to look into legal services as well. Like I'm happy to look at any any services that you all would like me to
>> to explore for sure. Um, and we can even put that on a future meeting where I just run through what we have and you guys can say yes, no, you know, like however you'd like to move forward with something like that. For sure. >> I think you definitely have. You also have to remember that we have the trash contract. >> Yep. coming up >> and um
>> actually I'd like to get I'd like to get that on the agenda just to have some type of a recap from >> from DPW and the board of health. >> No, >> solid waste advisory. >> The solid waste advisory. >> So I think with the solid waste advisory, we need them to provide
recommendations or decision points for >> the board >> as opposed to coming up and having a conversation. Yeah, it would just be useful. I think if they have decision points or things that they want to put in front of you to give a thumbs up. One thing that's important is I really want to see I want
to see the board have a have good knowledge of what the calendar is going to look like >> and when these decisions have got to be made because >> and we met with Republic this week Gino and I to understand what any potential renewal would look like what's on the table in the future but yeah we should
absolutely have them that might be a good January early January >> for slight slight diversion are we tracking are we getting the money back for all that >> we get those credits from the sub >> we did get credits through the first three months. Um I think we owe them on two bills right now. So I will check
with those and see where we are. That was a a question they had for us. And Gino, I know for July, August, September had been holding them to make sure that it was matching up with what was anticipated. >> Good. I just I have going to the question at hand uh something that had
come up last year that we didn't really have >> very good resolve on. We were not engaged with maybe all the necessary players was the board of health and understanding the health department and the board of health's opinions about
who how that needed to be staffed and what that needed to be looked like. And then we had opinions and I don't know that we ever got to >> I I talked to Gari last week to try to get her sense of >> perfect
>> what their goals were not only on the potential town meeting items that they've been kicking around. But um I think that would be a good discussion to have publicly with with them and you coming together. Um >> yep. Yeah, I I have I asked Allison how they do it in Hunt and what the sort of
organization was and it's on my list of things to talk to that about as well. >> Great. >> Um yeah, I think there's an opportunity for regionalization there, but I am one opinion in >> I think there are a lot of opportunities for regionalization, right? I mean,
we've talked about that with other towns and there's a collaborative for the IT situation. Danvers runs one, >> right? Um, so there I think are opportunities for sure. Those are things I I'm sure those are things you're >> y >> exploring as we speak. >> I mean, even with it, Joe and I have
talked about, you know, he has an expertise that I don't to see if there's an opportunity to make sure that they're either performing to scope or if we need to, we've also talked to EOTS, which is the executive office of telecommunications and support. You know, it's their IT at
the state level. They do a free audit similar to the financial management review that I also engaged that they're going to start hopefully just after the new year. They look at a number of different items, offer best practices, and identify places that we can do things differently as well. >> Yep. >> So, I think philosophically going
forward, what what I would prefer to see and I'm opening this up to discussion of the board is if we kept level service, what is the cost to the taxpayer to do that? because we we now we already are above >> y >> um level funding. >> We're above the policies. Correct.
>> We're above the policies. Yeah. So instead of starting from dire this is what it would look like if we draconian. >> Yeah. Sort of doom and gloom. Let's start to if services remain the same, this is what it what it is going to cost us. This is how we're outside the
financial guard rails or this is sort of the repercussions of that and then we can go from there. One question I for for me I I really want to see where we are without touching the unused levy if we stay at two and a half.
>> So I can go above the >> we so >> the policy is two plus >> the policy is two right. So what happens if we go >> the two and a half instead? >> Two and a half. Okay. >> Yeah. Well, if we level serviced the the likelihood of having to go above the
policy is 100% right. >> Above the policy. >> Above our policy into our into our unused >> unused levy, >> right? But I think you're talking about un You're saying two and a half is what we could be doing legally every year. You're saying the un not touching any unused levy, >> right,
>> that exists beyond the two and a half that is our limit in a single year. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is that you say level service and Mar saying level funding draconian? >> She's actually she's above level funding by the policies. She's
>> she's just saying I'm just saying a different is a different ceiling. >> Can we show both or is that >> No, we can do both. We can show both. >> Let's show both and see. I mean likely we get somewhere in between, but let's see. >> I I do think though that we never really did resolve that conversation that
started last summer about the health department. to your point Katie and that is something being you know a department of town hall and to your question >> excuse me >> um that we need some type of closure resolution to understand
FTE wise right what are we looking at um what is the answer there for that particular department >> and for the board are you're the >> I am the leazison >> that's what I thought okay because I I think it might be useful to have either a liaison chair chair chair meeting in that case and then also have you know
all three of them come in and speak to their goals, priorities and everything as well right >> so that it's a public discussion between you and they as well >> because really I mean after you know if we talk about town departments we're talking police we're talking fire and DPW there are a lot of these things that
are out of our control right police is what it is fire is what it is there's not you know in terms of positions and you know with contracts in and things of you know collective bargaining agreements there's not a whole lot of discussion to be had right so it's really the town hall building that needs
I guess >> I mean it's true in every community that sort of you know >> schools public safety DPW are always the things that people are building their budget from and >> right >> it's >> you know there's hard decisions to be made in all those places >> right >> in some cases but
>> those are I think and correct me if I'm wrong those are the priorities that everyone would be focused on to start >> exactly >> um across all you know public safety and and school and education are bedrock in most communities. So, >> you know, but if we could be looking at I mean how efficiency wise, streamlining
wise, you know, how we run things, how our procedures are, you know, what we util where we can make things, you know, work more efficiently, right? How we can do that if we're utilizing our FTEEs to our advantage, do we need more some, you know, in the assessor's office, whatever
it might be. But it's a real >> deep dive on on the FTEES that we need to do. I think we spent most of the year trying to figure out the right formula increasing FD, right? Yeah. Like we we we paired back assessors, we paired back
a couple of things and then we had to re sort of correct >> adjust. Yeah. >> And so now we have to determine if there is nowhere else to readjust then how we pay for it. >> Right. >> That's really the question at hand.
>> So services versus funding. Yeah. >> Versus finding one-time things to help patch a hole >> because I just feel like but I just feel like you know we we went through in exruciating detail that budget last year. I mean
there's not you I mean often times people will say things like that and it seems like an exaggeration like I mean >> we were looking at $500. Yeah, we did. We did, >> you know. So, I just do not feel as though you're going to like >> find, you know, half a million dollars
or a million dollars or whatever by like scratching at all these little places. >> No, I don't think so either. >> So, and we we know we have a curve. >> So, I mean, I'm looking up the rules about selling stuff. Doesn't sound like it's impossible to do that, right? >> Um, you know,
>> if you need a million dollars, you got to look at places where you're going to find a million dollars, >> right? You have to remember that in last year's budget, there was a major mistake >> to the tune of what was it? $440,000 >> that we had to dip into. Plus, we used
what a million dollars that we weren't planning on using. I mean, exactly. >> Last year wasn't just a bad year. It was a really bad year. There were really bad things that happened last year and we were also given some poor information and we're we're gonna have to be coming
off of that. So, you know, trying to stay out of this unused tax levy is I don't see how we're going to be able to do it. But we've just got to really drill down. I mean, we we took ourselves out of the
assessors because of a philosophical theory from the past town administrator, which and I'm not knocking him for it whatsoever. Um, he had more experience in assessing. He felt that he could add to that department. And then we ended up
putting more money into facilities, facility director, an assistant to the facility director. And these are things that all have to be looked at. And you know, you have to start putting your philosophies together on what are the best ways to operate a community.
>> But he needs our guidance. >> Yeah, for sure. So, >> yeah, >> we gave him something to start with. >> We did. Oh, I just want to second David's uh semiotion about uh relooking at the law firm. Um so, because that you you you voiced that and I don't think we
came around to actually saying do we all agree that that seriously should be looked at. Does it work for you if I were to come back with outline the process? It's outside of 30B, so you don't actually have to do a real procurement process in the same way that you do for something like Hawthorne. >> Um, but if I can if I could come back in
January and say here are the steps >> that we would undertake and you know sort of the model we would follow, you guys can then actually weigh in on the idea then as a group. Does that work? >> I think I think there's two pieces to it. One is the just can we get a better deal and let's just be frank about it.
there's been, you know, up and down uh feelings about uh KP. Um and so is that about them? Uh part of it, yes. Is it also about the way in which
at least it seems opaque to me about how legal dollars get spent and is there a way in which we could control our expenditures more? So there's actually I guess three pieces alto together there. So if we were can I go ahead. >> I was gonna say I think one way we can control legal expenditures is that KP
typically provides a memo of legal guidance for almost every question we ask and there should be some sort of library available to town hall employees that they could access that memo so that we are not asking KP multiple times for multiple questions. I mean sorry this
multiple times for the same answer. >> Absolutely. >> Circumstances change and that changes answers. That's why I have a job. But for the most part, we are asking very similar questions and we should be able to just pull up. Oh, last year we asked this question about how the language of the liquor license things should go. And
this is I think the other more important piece is what is the piece that we're being charged for hourly by KP? What is the work that they're doing consistently that we are charged hourly for? And how can we somehow get that into our scope of work so we're not charged hourly for that? Because the hourly rate is what
kills you, >> right? And where are we going for outside to to outside legal help outside of KP whether it's you know RFPs or LDAs or however else and how much money is being spent there and is there a reason we're
going outside? Why can't we go to KP? Is it because probably because we need more rapid answers in some instances and we're not getting that from KP. So how do we make that clear to KP that we would be going to them with some of the stuff if they were more responsive? So
the the idea of them just recycling an opinion is should be within the retainer. That is not something that they should be billing us per hourly. The way Lauren describes it is that anything that is not adversarial. >> So you're not preparing for ZBA. You're not preparing for litigation is within
the retainer. It appears looking at the memos from the last couple of years that they have aggressively said we need to raise the price and it's not necessarily just >> absolutely >> not just a 20 an hour or 10 an hour. So, and they do a blended rate that is, you know, obviously different from other
firms. I don't want to speak to the the idea of the RFP. It would be a qualification and a cost proposals, a price proposal. So it would the idea just to give more info would be like we get the right mix of uh appointed maybe elected and staff to do a broad uh panel
interview and we put forward a recommendation that limits them limits it to the ones that would come in front of the full board to ask questions. You would have our recommendation along with the questions and you would know who had been on those on that panel and you would at that point also have the cost proposal to go along with whatever our
recommendation was. Um, I think it's also reasonable that we would break it out and say we want labor and general set as two two different proposals because there's two or three firms that do very good labor work that will only bid on labor work. It at least will
drive the conversation. You get a different view of like what they offer versus a larger firm or, you know, there's a handful of firms that are all between 12 and 25 attorneys. Then there's KP and, you know, then there's a a couple of um labor firms. So I that would be
I'll come back with more detail but it would get to both price and qualifications. They would ultimately become before come before all of you all and you can tell us if there's five respondents you only want to see three or two or or all five if you want but it ends up being a relatively long interview process for you all as well
because it's a 45 minute to an hour panel that you would be doing to make sure you have a comfort level with the firm. Um, the other thing to control cost since I started is I asked Tom to make sure that anything that he's responding to comes back through me, which I know he said he has done in the past. I don't know how much they've
stuck to that, but it it then gives me a sense. I also told department heads that I want to know before they write to him. Um, so, you know, that was belt and suspenders that if they didn't write to me in the beginning or copy me in the beginning, I was hearing back when Tom get back to them. So,
>> it's been relatively good. you know, I know Rich Marzy, others will come either call come up or grab me in the hallway to say, "I have a question that might be going to them. Is this good with you?" We've had the question you raised is when I ask them like, "Have we seen this before? Do we have this in email
somewhere?" >> Um, but the way Lauren describes the feeds, it should all be included within the >> But you have to remember a retainer. So, we have the retainer, but every time you're calling and they're using the retainer, they're that's still clicking. And then what they do do at the end of the year is they say, "Oh, we had to
speak to Swamp's got a thousand hours. That is a lot more than what covered in the retainer." Then they have to increase the retainer. So the retainer excuse we can't we really can't use, >> you know, we have to
>> I think I think I I've seen I've seen opinions that were forwarded from three and four years ago. I'm sure you did as well. Yeah. >> We just had one. We just had one a couple weeks ago. That was that was the case with the tax hearing, >> right? >> I got two. One had gone to Sean, one had
come last year. So, it's like, >> yeah, >> it's a question that's come up. Um, so I completely understand what you're saying and I know with other firm, we went through this in Milton. Other firms talk about how their retainer might be different. Um, you know, ultimately it's it's the same idea. If you use them too
much, they're going to raise the raise the fee. Um, and each firm sort of operates differently in terms of this idea of like the library or something like that. On the contract side, some of the firms say, "We don't review contracts. We just tell them to use ours and if they don't want to do business with you,
>> they can leave." >> Uh, so this is all I I will put it into a presentation that just outlines like the four or five steps and then that would be something I would ask you to just vote to make sure that everyone's fully open and on the same page that it's something you'd like to move forward with. >> Absolutely.
>> Yes. That's I think it's probably the biggest area that could make an impact monetarily. >> Only area we have left. I personally I think that what did you say? >> I said I think it's one of the only areas we have left to be honest like we didn't look at it last year that doesn't
affect FTE is also another area >> I think over time >> well that's a different yeah that's a whole different animal but >> and the other thing with legal if you're comfortable in advance of me giving you that presentation I can just reach out to the firms that would be most likely to respond and
make sure that they have capacity to even respond so that we don't go this process and find out that there's no one else available right now. >> Yep. >> Is there like an end ofear summary we get from KPU to say where most of our money is being spent? Like is it in labor? Is it in like
>> do they do a little >> request that? I don't know. >> I've never seen they'll charge you. >> The firm the firm we had Milton was small Southshore firm that didn't I would not be surprised if KP had something like that, but I don't know just based on their >> given their size, >> their complexity. Yeah. and how many municipalities they have that are
probably asking for something like that >> just to know the sort of the subject matters that we're asking about >> and as a reference point about exiting the GIC if you needed to speak to somebody Danvers has done it and I have spoken to their director of HR about it um Jen Breaker she's the assistant town
administrator there >> okay >> um without having to pay a consultant she can tell you the ins and outs of >> what do they use now >> Blue Cross Blue Cross >> when do they go to Blue Cross >> it's probably in three or four years now >> cuz Boston went to Blue Cross a year ago.
>> That's when we talked to Sean that they suggested >> dear dear I've also spoken to her about their IT collaborative that they run. So they do the they handle the IT for Middleton Oxford and a couple of other towns
there. Denver's IT is like contracted to >> Yeah, >> they actually they had they helped us they helped us with a matter last year and they were really great. They actually looked at a couple things and said, >> you know, you are at this you're at risk here, here, and here.
>> I'm not an IT person. There were things I would change. >> So hopefully the the review at the state level will give us an actual road map to go to go to Danvers or go to another vendor and say these are things we want to be focused on. Well, especially with that collaborative. >> Yeah. >> That um
>> I was impressed with them last year. >> Other towns have done the leg work. So, it's like why reinvent the wheel? If somebody else has already figured out they can contract for cheaper, then why you know why don't we do it? So, >> okay. >> Thank you.
>> Okay, moving on to the consent agenda. >> Can I speak to that real quickly? >> Wait, we're not talking about the calendar or is that calendar in the calendar in the agenda, but let's uh let Nick talk about what he would like to talk about first. >> On the housing authority, there was a question about a special municipal
employee designation being necessary uh for Ken to be appointed. Uh chairman Patios had suggested that we look into that um because he does legal work within and before town boards. Um >> in talking to KP about the municipal,
especially municipal employees, it's by position, not by individual. So if possible, I would like to set this aside until the first meeting of January as well because you you as a board would designate, housing authority, planning board, ZBA, whomever as special
municipal employees to allow this. We wouldn't do it on an individual by individual basis. It would have to be all the members of the board are made special municipal employees. >> And that would allow him to be on this and to continue to >> Yeah, you he's still disclosing. He still has to disclose, but it allows
>> necessary. >> Yes. >> Without that, he could not be on the board. >> How long have they been without two individuals? Do you know? >> I do not. >> I think it's been I think it's been a few months. I I know Kelly Russo is I
attended the last meeting. Um she's she's the president of the um of the tenants association. She's been attending these meetings regularly. >> You know, she she just doesn't have a vote. We can we can approve her to >> yeah. >> Is there is there an issue with
approving her and not having them here as a joint meeting? >> I do not believe so. You raised that tonight. I had not heard that previously. >> It's an appointment, I believe. >> No, they they made they voted they voted they voted publicly twice now, right? >> Um to make this recommendation. I I
didn't think it was necessary for them to uh for them to attend uh something that was as preunctery as as appointing something as appointing two individuals with with >> you could always appoint them if there's an issue we can >> address that later.
>> So I would only appoint her tonight though >> so as not to put can in a position either. Yeah. >> Yeah. We just wanted to add add him to the agenda in the event that we did get >> that we were able to get this all done tonight. >> That's right. >> Okay. So moved. So, so, uh, the only
other thing that I want to note is that on the on the tentative select board dates >> Oh, we only have to meet once every three months now. >> That's the new schedule. >> No, no, this one. >> I know. Kidding. >> But it does say like February is a
question. So, the week of February 18th is February vacation. Um, so if it's the will of the board, we could push to the 25th or we could have it earlier on the 11th. Um, we could
also take off the 4th and just meet the 11th and the 25th so that we're outside of vacation and we still meet twice, but we just a decision really should be made before we vote. >> Well, I think the only people that it affects I think the people it doesn't affect is Doug and I. So I I really
think whatever is better for the three of you with children >> that are in >> What about you, Dick? >> I would also like you want to go away. >> And yeah. >> Yeah. So why don't we I mean I guess I would propose we just meet the 11th and the 25th then of that. >> Does that work for you? >> Does it work for you?
>> That's still two twice that month. >> Oh, so not meet the 4th. >> Yeah. I actually may be away the week of the 11th. >> Okay. So you want to meet the 4th and the 25th then? >> Yes. >> Okay. So then We'll take a long break from each other in February.
>> So we'll meet the 4th and we'll meet the 25th. Then that would be the proposal. >> And do we have a date for any financial summit? >> Yes. >> Tri chair is meeting um on the day after our next meeting. So the 8th. >> Okay.
And the hope is that we will have a topic in a next mini summit date >> towards >> Does the school committee have a new chair? >> Um whether he's the vice chair. >> I invited the vice chair to try chair. >> Who is that?
>> Glenn. >> Glenn pastor. Um, so I invited him to join us and if the school committee appoints a interim chair in the meantime, then I will hope that Glenn would pass the invitation along. >> Very good. >> Great.
>> I just want to vocalize that we are in budget season. It is coming and >> the longer these financial summit meetings take I don't want to turn into Doug but I'm just saying >> you know I've got a I know the tri
cheers meeting now it's two or three weeks out and >> yep >> you know I'm just concerned >> holiday is happening if you guys don't notice and also lost a member of tri chair so now we have to bring a new member in >> so I hear you I take the criticism
>> no and I will do my very best to pressure us to get a very close date in January as fast as possible to to continue discussion in January. I will if that's the will of this board, I will convey that to them. >> Well, we're a little bit off topic,
right? We're on the consent agenda. We're kind of uh just FYI, but >> we're talking about the calendar. We're talking about the calendar. We're on topic. We're talking about the calendar >> was the part of the calendar. >> Okay, fine. Um so then um >> if you want we can wait till select more time to keep that conversation. It's
>> fine. No it doesn't matter. >> Sorry. Um, I agree with Danielle and I think we were quite clear that the clock is super ticking about the school budget and that was what we I correct me if I'm wrong
clearly said we thought the next topic should be and I'm not sure why it has to wait for a trichare meeting to email people and say can we have our next summit meeting about the school budget and get someone to come in and give an education
We said the education was really important. >> So is it not possible to coordinate actually just getting the summit? >> It's not by chair. It's not even a try chair. It's a by chair. I mean why don't we just scrap the chair and just
>> have another scrap the chair of the committee for which you are basing your next conversation on. So >> I'm not suggesting that. But >> so what we did last time was we met in tri chair. We created we crafted an agenda. We determined who was going to
speak and what the direction of the conversation we thought the direction of the conversation might go in and then we picked a date. So that is what I hope to do on the 8th. It is the our wish is that the next conversation is about school budget. Finom met Monday and
discussed the questions they had for school in advance of their budget coming forward. So there's some context there that I would like to understand that we can hopefully put towards that conversation related to the next mini thing. But if you all want to send me
your feelings on what you think an agenda could be, if you can send them to Nick and we can compile them so we're not violating open meeting law, then I can bring that forward as all conversation topics. >> I think I think the question is why do
you like why why not just have a a meeting? Why not just be requesting the school and the finance committee can we get a meeting? We did the last one >> that eight first week >> date say can we can you do this? >> Yeah. >> Because we all know how long it takes to get everybody in the same room. >> Like why are we just like sending out an
email saying >> we're going to wait till January 7th >> just to have a conversation about then we're at the end of January. The school budget's done >> right. >> It's like >> okay so when do you all want to meet? >> It'll be January 7th. Uh that's our meeting, isn't it? >> Right. >> Yes. Maybe we said one of those
>> last time we did take the school committee's time and we use their time as that meeting. So if you want to take a select board meeting and make it that we just have to then move around anything that >> or January 14th. So, so
the suggestion would be well the 21st would be the meeting but if you want to have if you want to see three weeks in a row then yes the 14th >> or I'm fine we can get a board time done and then it's have everyone join
>> what about January 8th >> what about it can we shoot to have uh all three committees on January 8th or the seventh or eth Shoot for whatever you want, but we are two weeks out. >> I don't think you're going to have enough time to do January to do January
7th. >> Does it make sense to set up a whole >> There's not a real full week between now and January 8th. Yes. >> All right. >> Fairness. >> So, I think you're I think your the first time that you could possibly meet would be January 14th >> or 13. >> Why don't we sub the 21st January 21st
meeting? Why don't we say school committee, thank you so much for offering your last committee up as this mini summit. are we are offering the 21st as the date for the winning summit. >> Select board already meets on that date and having known that we will take anything that we need to discuss on the 21st and either push it to the 7th or
push it to the 4th of February. >> That sounds like a great idea. >> So moved. >> Just just know that by that point we're far in, right? >> We're too far in. No, we're not too far in, but the decision the school budget by that point is is, you know, we can
ask as many questions and have put as much much education out there, right? But it it's a very short window between >> if if we had talked about it being an opportunity for education though, what input are you hoping to get out of it other than the educa? Just so
>> understanding probably build I I don't know there from my understanding, Fincom had a lot of questions. We have a lot of you know unresolved issues with accounts and whatnot and thought process >> and what >> I mean there's a lot of stuff floating
out there that is that directly affects their budget which in turn is affect >> you want me to suggest the 14th >> No I'm just saying like I would prefer to not go past that because I think >> okay I >> can I can I pick up I because I think
it's exactly the right question um just for expectation setting for all of Right. >> By correct me by charter whatever like we don't have the purview
>> to give any type of direction >> to the school committee about the formation of their budget. >> Correct. >> Right. So, um, what, so just kind of working back from that premise so that we're kind of level setting and not thinking that we're
going to be able to kind of like, you know, guide and suggest or recommend or anything, right? >> Therefore, you know, getting something in January would be good so that when the school committee does present their budget, >> correct?
>> People are up to speed already and they're hearing it in an educated state. level set the knowledge. >> Right. >> Right. >> We're comfortable. Fencom is more comfortable. The schools can understand where we're coming from. We they and vice versa. That's what we're looking for. We're not looking for say or input.
We're just looking for, you know, an equal playing field so that everybody understands everybody else's intent. Right. >> And the number one thing for me in this conversation with schools is that I always feel like there are understandings that exist and I feel like I'm always the last person at the
table. And so like I want to understand how manyus are out there and what people feel like those say and obligate people to do so that we can all manage expectations and it's not like the golden ticket that comes out of town meeting like here's thisou that we
signed three years ago like we all understand it and we all have the same bits of information. >> Right? >> That's one of the most important pieces for me. Now having said all that, what is the mechanism by which formally
the school committee understands again formally of course it's in the ether formally understands our financial position the town collectively. How how does that how does that get communicated? How does
that uh get taken into consideration as they formulate their budget? Is that >> that's through communication >> at a very high level. It's different in different communities. >> Y >> yeah. So like Winthrop the town administrator manager is someone I know from Lfield and he's been in a couple
other communities. What he tries to do is to set like the base budget to say including expenses like all in on each side. this is what you all get and what it covers and what it you know what you're paying for and you know what's not covered in that what are shared
services what and it's a baseline to say like so your number is X the town operations is Y the debt we carry is Z you know like but that in in all honesty I was talking to him about it this week like how did he get there because part of my job here is to understand how
we've operated here over time I have no interest and desire in changing everything and two and a half months into my time here. It's working within and so it's a conversation I need to have with Eric. I can talk to Glenn. I can talk to you further. Obviously, Jason and I are the two newest to this
and and so I need to get a better answer for you, but it's different in every community is the short answer. So, could I say >> Historically, it's really the same. So, what what historically has always happened is the town administrator >> has a conversation with the superintendent and then the town
administrator gives the superintendent a number, >> right? and the past superintendent would would always work with the town administrator and had very difficult numbers to work within and yet she worked within all those numbers.
>> Yeah. I I think the one thing I would caution that is a bigger driver right now is special ed education and special ed transportation are wildly expensive and change significantly with just a single student in the census either way.
>> Correct. So I the pressures are slightly different than it may have been you know seven years ago or five years ago. I just want to highlight that >> two years two years >> two years we're just we're talking I don't think those pressures are really to deal with that right >> we have we have reserve front >> special reserve
>> we have special we have circle breaker special reserve and then we have our emergency reserve within the town >> great so I guess working back for it logically on this then for me >> you've already kind of given us preliminary >> right
>> hole that we're in Right. >> In the conversation you were almost having with you know we were having kind of earlier now this comes in a different frame for me for example if we met on January 7th
continued this conversation and we're more specific about the fact that collectively we be you know we believe we don't want taxes to go up you know more next so therefore we want to stick to 2 point even 2.5 and not t tap into levy.
That would then give you very specific information to be sharing with the superintendent >> so that they don't get to the 11th hour planning their budget, right, >> in a way which is perfectly reasonable from like kind of what their needs are,
>> but still may be a significant mismatch with our financial realities. >> Right. That's where we seem to always kind of >> have the mashup. Right. Exactly. We haven't given that clearly >> in that direction. >> Right. >> And that's why we've had three budgets previously. We've had the school
committee, the superintendent's budget, town administrator's budget, and fin's budget. >> Exactly. Now, I mean, for point of reference, Lynfield just yesterday asked for a 4.9% increase budget, school budget. They
presented, right? So Tom Gary, superintendent, presented his budget yesterday >> to the tune of 4.95% increase. Where is Swamcott in terms of that preparation, right? Do we know? Do we have any idea? I have no idea. >> No idea.
>> Well, what what is the >> the time? They don't have to present yet. >> They don't. But I'm saying like the you know there are towns that already are that far into their budget process at this point where they know what they're asking for what their need or what their
needs are. So for us to wait another month to your point like the schools are going to be you know they do they have a financial understanding of where we are or what the >> the anticipated increase from from the schools last year was going to be over 4%. I Cheryl's comment to Cinder was
that it would be between three and three/4ers and four, not over four. Okay. >> And she very specifically asked that if you were to get everything that you're asking for here, are you a two and a half or below? And Cheryl said no. I think what we're looking at is really >> when was this? >> It was last spring. I don't I can find
the date, but I've heard it from Eric. I've heard it from other members of the finance committee. And I believe I even heard from Jason. I wouldn't I don't want to make sure I don't want to quote Jason on but I've certainly heard it from Fincom members that >> right >> that was a question that came up and was very directly asked and very directly answered >> but that was last spring for this
>> correct going forward if we give you everything you need right now are you good and can stay within two two and a half going you know in future years and said no I don't think that's realistic was the answer >> so my point is they they probably very well already know what it is they've created if if for example Lynfield knows
right I would I think they're on a similar timetable, right? So that the conversations need to be happening now is what I'm saying, right? To Dex's point, because the longer we wait, like the more you know, they're they're thinking this way. We're thinking this way. There's the big divide. Here it comes again. To David's point, the three
budgets, right? This is what we're trying to avoid. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're back to the calendar. >> Maybe we just start polling and seeing. I I would just like to say this is when it's happening with the Trump because polling is just a mess and everybody's
got opinions and nobody's ever going to be fully happy. So I would rather just say >> this is the two dates that work for select board. >> Please figure out if any of those two dates work for you. >> Okay, >> great. >> So if that's the 8th and the 14th or whatever the two dates you guys come up
with right now, you tell me. So, if it's the 8th, I will email them tomorrow and let them know if that doesn't work for you and you wanted to try the 14th and the 21st. The 21st felt too late. So, >> and the request is for them to educate
on how they put together the budget. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And and then for us to unearth all theus. >> Yep. I have that. >> And understand their understanding of theou and our understanding of theou and how that affects budget. >> Yep.
Right. And you know and of course >> the nant fund and utility fund that's part of theou question right not >> the nahan's not but the utility for me theou related to the utility and how it then didn't get budgeted and that's an
understanding situation. >> Yep. >> And so like putting it all out there on the table and saying no that's not how we understood it and where those understandings came from. We're gonna have to work through some of that. >> And then on our January 7th meeting, I
guess I'm suggesting that we try to provide have a discussion and try to provide more clarity on the financial bandwidth that we're shooting for. >> Yeah.
>> What does that mean exactly? >> Can you say that? >> Yeah. Is it is it 2.5? Is it two? >> Is it a million dollars into unused levy? Is it level funding? You know, really kind of pushing this conversation >> what we realistically can say that we're
comfortable with, right? >> And really understanding that, not giving a mixed message, right? Not saying minus 2%. Right. Right. >> You know, when we really know it can be 2.5 or whatever the case is, you know. >> So, I'm gonna So, going back to the calendar, I'm going to put 114 as an
option. Are there is there another option because we felt like 121 was too late. >> 184 is yeah option one and 18 option two. I just want to from the staff standpoint say again 18 is not it.
>> I I don't know what we're asking I I'm I'm not entirely clear what we're asking them to tell us or teach us or educate us but there's not a full week until that second week in in uh where staff doesn't have time off or we could not
reasonably anticipate that staff would have time off between now and that week of the 8th. So we'd be asking them to do it on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday of that week. Is that right? >> Week. Yeah, that that I don't understand what the issue is. There's two different things here, Nick, right? One is for the schools, we're talking about 18 to 114.
For the schools, all we're asking them is to kind of explain to us collectively the try the the big committee meeting, multi-committee meeting, just take us through your process. Try to get us make sure the complaint has been like people haven't taken the time to get educated,
>> right? Glenn had a fair point. People haven't taken the time. There are classes, they're this, there's that. Right? So, we're asking we're going to have a a school session. Educate us about the school budget, okay? And about theus. That should be something that I
think Cheryl could do tomorrow if you know we asked her to, right? So, >> I mean, there's got to be, listen, it's got to be a clear understanding of the 2025 budget was a budget where multiple members of the school committee
came in to town meeting and said, "This budget that the town administrator, the finance committee, the select board gave to the superintendent, this budget does not cover what our needs are, and we need another $400,000." During that town meeting, we had a lot
of drama and a lot of hard feelings. It was first it was added and then the next day it was decreased. There was an additional $400,000 on the table. We go through this budget that was not enough. Go through the budget in 2025. At the end of the year in 2025,
there is close to what was it almost $600,000 that was left in the revolving account. So there has to be a real clear education as to how there was so so much
excess funding that was left in a revolving account. These are all the conversations that we need to have and understand how does that play into the future budget. And that's the school side. >> So, back to your concern about town staff.
>> So, I I'm not sure how much there work there is for you. >> I was I was talking on behalf of school staff being able to do that. >> Okay. I was just saying staff of >> now that now that I've said that do you feel like that's un unreasonable on them
to prepare that type of basic information >> for a January 8th meeting at this point >> I think we should ask the vice chair I I don't want to speak for I was just cautioning the fact that between now and then we get next week is Christmas the week after is New Year's
>> I'm going to put both dates I'm going to make both dates an option and then they can we can all fight about it Okay. >> Ourselves. >> I was only highlighting the calendar, not saying that it is or is not doing. >> I would go out and say that Cheryl Stella could do it in >> 24 hours. Honestly,
>> well, I have that much. >> No, I would never, but I have that much. >> It's a compliment to her. Absolutely. We've um uh so I I will work for a 18 or 114 mini summit on schools. We will discuss a broad explanation of school
budgeting and how it comes to uh formation and theus and the understandings of those and and I will also ask Eric and Glenn for any other topics they wish to discuss to add to the agenda and that is where I will leave that
>> and I will move the consent agenda >> as amended. >> As amended sorry now I have lost the consent agenda. Okay. >> Okay. Great. >> You're moving it. Just removing >> too big until January. >> Second.
>> Yep. All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> Very good. Okay. So, now we have select board time. y'all stole my topic already because I was going to talk about tri chair and where things are going. But let's get ahead of the game for the next
part of that conversation, which is the following conversation was going to be our financial boundaries and guard rails. But now it feels like talking about that in February is maybe >> too late. >> Too late to be honest.
>> Doug's going to say, "I told you so." Not the not this on the tip of your tongue, but >> No, me a lot of projecting going on here tonight. Dodge, >> I forgot the sweater. I'm sorry. Okay. >> Um, so
then I'm open to feedback about conversations. You know, if we meet on the ETH, maybe we can we really want to hang out in January. You guys want to meet again at the end of January? But I'm open to thoughts and you don't have
to have them right now. Just get them. >> I I don't think I don't think it's uh I don't think it would be shocking to me to say that we would need a third summit. Even though we may express our desire and guidance January 7th, we give total lucid clarity. Um the schools, you
know, are still going to produce their budget. >> We're still going to be going through our budget process. There's still going to be pressures. There's still going to be decisions to be made. Um we're still probably going to be pushing up against um the um uh not thresholds um
>> guidelines financial guidelines >> financial guidelines etc. So I think you know it's entirely possible that a collective discussion could still happen at that point but I don't think it needs to be you know scheduled or worried about at this moment. >> Okay. >> My two cents
>> pennies are hard to come by so I'll take your two cents. I I have a couple things, >> please. >> Um, thanks. So, you know, we we welcomed this week, we welcomed a new business, Sam Walker's, uh, to Swampskit. Uh, it's
a 400 seat restaurant. It's 10,000 square feet. It is going to be, um, you know, really the the beating heart of, uh, of Vinnen Square. It's it's it's pretty exciting. Um, drinks are great, the food's great. Um, you know, I
encourage everybody to check it out um during the holiday season and and and beyond. Um, certainly a a really it was it was pretty impressive um being in there last night. Uh I did run into Loris Panis um who also served on this board and
served as president of uh of Anchor Food Pantry um since it was established in March of 2020 uh during the pandemic. Um so I want to send a special congratulations to her. she's um she's still going to serve on the board, no longer as uh as president, but I want to
commend her um and her board and um and every and everybody who's uh who's really volunteered and and donated um their time, effort, efforts, and energies uh to Anchor Food Pantry. So, thank you, Laura. Um and thank you to the board. And uh I just want to
acknowledge two um two children uh as well. Uh we saw some uh we saw some news uh media, you know, when I I I woke up on Wednesday morning and I saw uh two local boys uh River and Riley Wynand uh had raised money for for Anchor Food
Pantry by getting out and shoveling uh sidewalks, driveways. Um you know, they really embodied uh the the meaning of uh of the holidays and the holiday spirit. So, I think our community is better for uh you know, for having um River uh and
Riley and Laura and so many other community members uh who have uh you know, who have worked tirelessly. So, I just wanted to say thank you. >> Abby Holiday, >> thank you, River. >> Y >> anybody else like to go?
>> Sure. Um I have I happen to agree with David Sam Adam Sam Walker Tavern. Amazing. We all, I think, were there last night. Um, fantastic. It looks beautiful. It's a welcome addition. I wish them much success. I think Swamp Scott is going to embrace them. I think
they already have, which is great news. Um, kudos to Big Blue Bargains, who is doing a wonderful 10 or 12 days of giving. Um, they've brought cookies and stuff to town hall, the post office, lunch for the DPW.
I mean, they've knocked it out of the park. such a generous organization and really um spreading cheer all around this town. >> Um along with the recreck department, I I just I was at the puzzling Christmas puzzling
>> totally getting whooped. I could not win. Absolutely not. Couldn't even finish my 500 piece puzzle. >> I had some real strong players on my team and still my I had my glasses and all couldn't do it. Should have taken you four with me. Um, but an amazing
number of programs out of Clark School and fun stuff for the kids and just a lot happening in town. I've never seen this town so festive, I'll say, you know, in the past month or so, like the lobster trap, Christmas tree, like, you know, Santa Con up and down Humphrey
Street. There's just stuff going on left and right. And it's just really nice to to see and be a part of. Um, I'm happy to wear this sweater at David's suggestion. Um, and the memory of Don House, you know, it's just it's been a really nice holiday season in Swampscott
and I'm glad to be part of it. Um, but Big Blue Bargains, I they topped the list for me. They've just done an extraordinary thing. So, thank you for that. That's all I have. >> Well, since I forgot to wear my holiday sweater, I'll give non-h holiday related
updates. Um, so, uh, and one, uh, Nick, you might be able to help me out with. Um just wanted to bring it to people's attention that as part of this is from the climate action uh committee uh as since we uh were awarded being a climate
leader uh we again as I think the board knows we're have the option to pursue two different types of grants 150,000 and a million and uh we have uh put in for the $150,000 uh uh kind of research uh study grant
And that is a very very comprehensive uh assessment of the opportunities at the high school. Uh everything from you know replacing the heating systems to the parking lot to canopies to uh everything under the sun. Catch the pun. Um and
thank you. Um so um that is um uh underway. I I don't know the timing uh or anything uh in terms of how long or anything. I don't know exactly but I know that it will inform future decisions here on heating cooling
um geothermal >> geothermal geothermal assessment right >> how we can actually sequence all those things along with the parking lot and any improvements there so >> exactly and then the other thing is uh another update on the um community preservation committee
>> yes that didn't sound right um so they they met for their first meeting um and they'll be meeting again January 7th uh for a training and uh there's lots of people from you know many many different boards that are on that committee and uh
this is going to be a great training and everyone from those committees not just the representatives is invited to participate in them to really understand uh the the resources there and the process there uh so I think that's January 7th at 7 o'clock right and
that's at senior center >> yes Yep. Uh so everybody's welcome to come. Um and uh we we are on track to uh collect $750,000 by July 1st uh through
through the uh assessment and um and so and it is possible um that there could be things that would come up at uh Maytown meeting. uh that would be kind of an acceleration in some ways given
that when the committee got formed uh but there will be funds available uh for the committee to disperse if they so choose to go down that path. Um so I think uh anything else on that front Daniel? >> No, you did a good job.
>> Well, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um so I think that's all for me. So for me, I just want to thank Joe Doulette, Nate Bishim, Nathan Kent, Danielle Merceri, um, for once again
bringing us the videos and broadcasting this meeting. Um, and on the Christmas theme, first I want to thank I want to thank you, Nick, for offering to take us out after this meeting over to Sam
Walkers for their opening drinks. >> They got so late, though. So, >> I think we could still make it. >> License goes to one. >> Your license goes to one. So, you you'll be covered. Just bring that credit card. And um but the Christmas parade, I just want to >> drink
Coke. So um but our Christmas parade again that the police department puts on. It's always a super favorite of mine in my neighborhood. Everybody comes running out and it's a it's just a magnificent parade. And I'm not sure everybody
understands that that parade is put on by the Swampscott Police Association and those are all volunteers out there. those those police officers that are you're seeing um they're all volunteers. The police departments that come from Lynn was there, Salem was there, Nant was there.
>> I don't know. >> The high school band played this year. >> They were amazing. >> Yep. That was the first year they played. >> Oh, really? I didn't know that. >> Santa was there. It was just DPW, you know, the trucks are all polished up and lit up. It's just it's really great. And I just want to thank them for their hard
work and and really making it super festive. And I just want to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year. >> Merry Christmas. >> Thank you, Mary Ellen. Um I will mention Diane emailed that the next dementia training is on February 23rd in town
hall at 3 p.m. So community members would like to attend. Um and I given that is the holiday season and we spoke about all the things that bring us cheer, please knock on your neighbors doors. Make sure that they're okay. make sure that they're uh have somebody to
celebrate the holiday with. That's what community is all about and that is one thing that we do very well in Swampscott. So, let's continue to do that. It's the holidays aren't easy for everybody. So, with that, I will entertain a motion. >> So, moved. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> I I Thank you. Night.