What' you say that number was? >> 21 Katie on. Oh, there she is. >> Mhm. >> Here comes Ted. >> I just texted Ted. >> He's right here. >> Oh, there he is. >> Shannon, can you unmute Katie?
>> Yes. Ted, >> hello. >> How are you? Just a little wet. >> How are you? >> Starting to dry. Sorry, I just texted you.
>> Katie, you can unmute yourself if you want to start. >> Thank you, Daniel. Can you guys hear me? >> Whoa. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Definitely can. >> Definitely hear you. You want me to be softer? Uh, too soft. >> She's fine. Can we just fix the mic? >> Yeah.
>> Yes. Cool. >> All right. Do we have thumbs up from uh >> Yep. >> All right. Very good. So, we will begin um Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 select board meeting uh to a call to order. Please
note the meeting is being audio and video recorded. If we could rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> Pledge allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. We will begin this evening with the town administrator's report. Okay. Thank you. Uh good evening everyone. I want to begin with uh a thank you that we missed at the last meeting which is a
sincere thank you to everyone who put time and energy into the Freder Frederick Douglas reading um that we had at the beginning of July. I know we had a lot of thank yous at the at the last meeting and this was one that that I missed and I want to make sure everyone realizes how important that was in terms
of uh the the full array of events that we had and there were a lot of folks put a lot of effort into it and we're also very flexible with the heat. we moved over here to the to the high school and we were able to uh also include and welcome Attorney General Andrea Campbell. So, it was a really good event
and I wanted to make sure that that that was recognized. Um, a little bit about the rest of the report uh for tonight. First, I want to speak about the transitional audit which I mentioned at the last meeting. Uh, to be clear, uh, we have the final draft report right now. I may have misspoken at that point.
We are working with CLA right now to complete and finalize it. Uh Patrick and I anticipate being back uh in August with the final report. When complete, we will do a highle presentation here, but also send out um after posting online, send the link to all of the town meeting members, finance committee, and other
electeds as well. So everyone will have access to that as uh very soon. Second, uh tonight, uh we had talked about Engles terrorist at the last meeting and I want to just highlight that here tonight. We had anticipated an opportunity to vote on that uh and we will not be voting on that tonight. We
did not notice that. Uh, and part of why we did not is in looking at it. Um, Gino and I actually both were out there, measured the roadway, uh, the the distance across at its most generous point is about 17 ft. The minimum if we were building from scratch for right
ofway would be 20. When you start to put a a vehicle on one side or the other or both, it gets significantly more constricted. So what we plan to do is to have uh our assistant engineer Gino, myself and both chiefs speak on Monday, not just about Engles but more broadly
uh about potential similar situations and issues that we may be facing. Uh in addition, I would anticipate and this is uh just something I want to share that we will also recommend a path forward to address, you know, any future requests for things like speed bumps or changes to parking. So that we're looking at it
uh with professional staff and coming to you all with a recommendation that includes that feedback in advance so that you have that with you from the first conversation you have. And then I assume as with any change, there would probably be two meetings that you all would have for anything like that as well. So the the process that we will come forward with will include a
recommendation for how we'd like to move forward subject to your uh feedback and input obviously. Um I appreciate everyone's understanding of both those matters. So um you know we really do think that we'll come back with recommendations that are well thought out and very well prepared for you all
to deliberate on. Um, I also wanted to highlight uh traffic around the elementary school, which is an issue that we heard about more during the school year, but it's something that we had promised a number of residents and I know elected officials that we would begin looking at as the school year ended. Um the first meeting that uh was
convened for that included officers Wilson and Reene, uh principal Sanborn and Max talking about brainstorming, you know, potential improvements for this fall and identifying ways to mitigate some of the issues that have been most significant that have developed over the first couple of years operating at the
school. Um we plan to invite them to one of your meetings in August to not only let you all know where we stand, but also to talk more broadly with the community about what we anticipate doing for the school year ahead. Uh I know we're going to be speaking a little bit more later tonight about trash and
recycling. Uh but as we move forward um with the the new recycling barrel deployment which will begin next week on the 27th and the automation which begins the following week, August 3rd. I do want to call out the solid waste advisory committee for all the help that they provided to town staff on
messaging, thinking creatively about ways to to reach out and also making sure that we're we don't have blind spots that we're missing. We're happy to get any info and feedback from folks here or at any time uh giving us a call or online. Uh but I I really wanted to call out their help with outreach and
planning around the transition. Um with the World Cup coming to a close, I wanted to recognize Charlotte and Christina specifically for the work that they did to bring the games to the community. This was something of an audible that just came up uh this spring like is this something we can do? How do we do it? What do we have to think
about? And I think it turned out to be a really great success with the work they did both at town hall but with vendors and then for a handful of the games actually working closely with police uh when we anticipated larger crowds uh for the US games and as we got deeper into the tournament. It was a really unique thing that not a lot of communities did
around here certainly of our size. I don't know of any communities that did it. Uh so I wanted to thank them for that. I also wanted to you know recognize the momentum that they have going right now. The summer movie and summer concerts have been launched. um this past weekend was the event in partnership with Bentwater. Uh so
there's a lot happening and the whole team is bringing a lot of energy and creativity to their roles and and I really appreciate it and I know the community does as well. Uh on the personnel or HR side, I wanted to give a couple updates. Uh Olivia Kah Hills has begun at the police academy as she takes the next step towards serving our
community. We have a number of folks here that are also uh serving the community that the the chief will be speaking to tonight. Uh and then at the DPW we also welcomed Mike Fya and Robert Robert Fiori uh as MEOs. So we're excited to have all of them joining the team and I wanted to highlight that. Um
before I close I want to note one additional one other change to tonight's agenda. We had planned to recognize several recent retirements this evening. Um in order to make sure that we could do this as well as possible and in working with um the folks that we plan to recognize, we're going to move that to to August 4th. that will give
everyone enough time to make sure that they can get friends, family and colleagues to join us. Uh so that is something that we are looking forward to as well. Finally, I want to highlight a really exciting community partnership. Um Big Blue Bargains has actually pledged to match fundraising efforts
intended to defay a portion of the um the work at Upper Jackson on the track. And so we will be rolling that out on social media. Ideally, the way it will work is that they will match donations to the town. At town hall, we're able to accept them at customer service and
beginning of next week. Hopefully, looking at Patrick, uh we'll be able to process them online as well. It's just something we have to work with our vendor to sort of turn on that option because this is not something like a bill that's attached to an account number and an address. We just want to make sure it's something folks can do if they're interested. So, uh, we're
looking forward to that and we're really excited that Big Blue Bargains has, um, has put forward this match and as I said, you'll see on social media, uh, and and online that effort moving forward, probably starting in the morning. Um, and it's really something exciting to look forward to and it's a
new idea and and we hope to be really successful with it. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. I just want to also bring attention to the great event at the senior center uh yesterday. Uh as uh with the ice cream social um Nick and Gino and two members
of Republic came out to answer questions and show the barrels to to uh the folks at the senior center. >> Shannon was there as well. >> Yes, Shannon, I'm sorry you were. And we we talked or she was there. Um so just want to thank you for that. I think it was successful.
>> Yeah. And we saw that as an opportunity to speak to folks that were there for a social event and not necessarily paying as close attention to the trash transition as others may be. So it was a great chance to let them actually move around the barrels and the folks from um Republic actually put weights at the bottom of each of the barrels to give a sense of what it feels like really
moving it. Uh so it was it was a really good event and talking to Sabrina will probably be back uh not just for that in advance of the the changeover but also to gather feedback as we move forward in the next couple of months to see what else we might be able to do. >> Okay. Did people feel like, "Oh, I can handle this?" >> I think some were surprised at how well
they could handle it, and others were surprised that it is a large barrel, >> and even the 65 next to the 95, the 65 is large when you compare it to what folks are using for their trash right now. >> Uh, I think it was really useful. The weight at the bottom of it was good because it's not just moving around an
empty rigid plastic barrel. Um, and you know, they said sort of the average user is about 10 to 12 pounds and it was a 10 pound weight. So, uh, it was it was a good opportunity. >> I have a I have >> any additional >> Oh, go ahead. >> Go ahead, Mary. >> Um, I So, I have a question that we
didn't hear about it last week and I just want to know, can you just give us an idea of what happened with that meat truck that was in Vinnon Square a couple weeks ago? >> So, it was on private property. It had filled out with the I believe with the
health department. Thank you for that. Uh the necessary paperwork and it is something that we will work to avoid happening in the future. >> Okay. So we are going to look to avoid. >> Correct. >> That's correct. >> Yes. Okay. >> Absolutely. And it it was a matter of first impression for many folks at town hall and that was why I think we spent a
lot of time over the weekend trying to figure out the right solution >> and they were shutting down Monday night. So, it's something that going forward we have a better game plan, but it was a it was a matter of first impression for many of us. >> Okay, great. >> Great.
>> Any anything else from the board? >> I had a question about Hawthorne, but I don't think you mentioned it. Um, in terms of their anticipated opening date or what's happening there? >> So, the liquor license was approved this week. Um they I believe they need to
have their fire suppression inspected in order to get their final occupancy. Uh Marzy and Rich both met with them to go through their floor plan uh to make sure that sort of they're checking off all the boxes that are necessary. The one significant one that remains is having
the fire suppression inspected. Um when Hawthorne by the Sea was operating there, it's an annual inspection. At the end of their final year, they did not do any of the annual inspection. So, it's been at this point sort of 18 months since last inspection. We don't anticipate there'll be a problem, but it is something they need to complete
before we can give a co. >> Okay. And just remind me again, when did they take possession? Was it May? >> The beginning of May. Yeah. >> Okay. And have we checked to see if we've received their payments yet from >> I I have and he's coming in tomorrow to
get up to date. We are behind right now. >> So, as of right now, they haven't anything. Okay. Okay. >> And I've spoken to him. And that's how I know tomorrow is when he anticipates bringing it in. >> Okay. Well, I'm glad you're on top of it. Thanks. >> Okay. Uh we is if that's uh good for
everybody, we will move on to public comment. Public comment will be capped at 3 minutes. Uh I will actually ask Nick to sort of manage since I'm physically not there. Um, if you wouldn't mind keeping time and informing
people when their time is up. >> We have one online, Katie. >> Yep, we do have one online. >> If you want to talk about the lab, >> should you wait? If you want to talk about the should >> now, now would be the appropriate time. >> Yeah. >> And then the deliberation will be among
the board later on. So, now is an opportunity to share input and sort of inform their discussion later on in the evening. >> Yeah. I will just clarify the only way that public comment occurs during select board the actual select board meeting is when there is a public hearing held
within the meeting. All other public comment should happen at this time and there are no public hearings on tonight's agenda. So all public comment should occur now. >> So we have one in person here at the mic >> and I'll just I'll give you like a 30
second wave so you know when we're getting close to three minutes. I didn't know that last week, so it'll be helpful this time. >> Um Paula Clarage, 31 Banks Terrace. I'm here as a citizen and as a member of the open space and recreation plan committee. And I just wanted to talk a couple of comments about the Hawthorne.
I had three points. I watched your deliberations from July 7th. And a couple of things I wanted to point out was just I thought it would be a really great idea if the select board members could make visits to neighboring communities and see the parks that they have there and the open space they have
there along the waterfront and how they're being used lately with the hot weather that we've been having and the um tall ships coming into Boston. It's been really fun to see how these park areas have been used by the community. Even on the hot days, people sit out there just to get the breeze coming off
the water, sitting in the shade under trees and stuff. So, I would highly recommend before you put parameters in the RFP for how, you know, it should be developed, maybe go experience these places. Some places I noted was just Newbury Port, their park along the waterfront is great, the Willows at
Salem, and then for the tall ships, I was out at Piers Park in East Boston, and that was fantastic to see the community come out and use that. Um, the other thing I wanted to bring up was just the access to the coastline there and I know there's going to be a bigger discussion about whether the building
remains or gets demolished. Um, I agree with the Hawthorne committee's recommendation that the building come down. I know that I'm an architect. I know that renovating a building, especially if it's going to change use to bring it up to code, particularly the energy code, is going to be very expensive. If a developer can do it, I
guess that's up to them. But the building does pose an obstacle to views from Humphrey Street as well as the coastal access that's required by the warrant for a purchase of the property. And then lastly was the idea of having residential there. And I just wanted to
point out that when residents, even if they don't own the park, but they feel some ownership of the park, there could be sticky situations and weird negotiations happening right now. There's a condition at Eisman's Beach that was brought to the open space committee's attention where there's a portaotty right in the center of the
historic concrete bench there because all of the residents around the park couldn't agree on where to locate it and that was the one spot that was agreeable to everybody and it looks ridiculous. So residences thinking they have some part
of ownership over a neighboring park can be awkward. So those are the points I wanted to make. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, good evening. Uh, James Andrews, 133 Stson Avenue. Um, I'm here today to voice opinion
about the Hawthorne property. Um, when I look at the math behind the project, we spent $7 million to buy the property. We're committed to another seven or eight million in interest payments over the course of owning the property. Um,
so we're looking at $15 million, $16 million there without doing anything to the property. When this property was purchased, we were told that the town could afford it. If that's the case, why did my property taxes go up way beyond
inflation the year before last, about 10%. way beyond inflation this year, another 10% and are likely to go up another 10% next year. It's pretty clear the town couldn't afford to buy this property at the time. And quite frankly,
it's pretty clear that the $30,000 in interest we're paying a month needs to be offset by some revenue from the property. I encourage the board to commit to a combination of public access to the waterfront and also
revenue generating businesses that complement what we do on Humphrey Street to offset the cost of this project. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Yeah. Hi, my name is Rick Rostoff. I live at
406 Paradise Road and I, as a resident, have an interest in the Hawthorne reuse. Um, I know there's been discussed about having it as open space, which I think is the biggest waste of area and time
that could be put there. We have beaches, we have parks, we have tons of um, areas that are open space. And I think this is the opportunity for the town to make this something vibrant and that can really start anchoring that
part of Humphrey Street to be a nice nicer area. Um, for example, I don't know how many of you have been down to Newport, Rhode Island recently. Um, but this picture is a hotel right on the main drag. Um, it h
it's a restaurant and shops on the first floor. It has two floors of hotel rooms above it. I think this is would be the perfect fit for that space. As a matter of fact, I think if we're going to do it, it should probably have three or
four floors above it of either hotel rooms or condos. And then you keep your restaurant on the first floor. You have some nice retail and now you have an anchor for that whole part of Humphrey Street. Um, but like I said before, we
have tons of parks, beaches, towns, other towns and cities would kill to have that. Why leave this open space and just augment what we already have? So that's what I would say in terms of the Hawthorne. And then I saw that parking enforcement
is also on the schedule tonight and I guess I feel a little outnumbered. But um one thing I will say the parking enforcement at both the Swampscott Mall and the Panera Bread Plaza
um is definitely lacking. Um I brought this up about a year ago to one of the police officers and they said, "Well, we can't do anything because it's not a fire zone." Um, and all we can do is tell people to move along. Well, about six months ago, they painted it and put
lines in front of where Panera Bread is that now say fire zone. And yet, it's mainly Uber Eats people and things like that who park there. They can't take the extra 30 seconds to pull in a space and they block the road. Um, there's a lot
of elderly people trying to get to Panera Bread and they can't get in. And I've seen some officers just walking by or driving by when there's like four cars there. >> 30 seconds. >> Okay. And I think that they should really take a tougher stance and start
ticketing some of these people. Thank you. >> Do we have anybody else in person for public comment? >> No one else. Katie in person. >> Okay. If we can allow Diane to unmute, please. You can unmute yourself, Diane.
>> It's not letting us do it, >> I think. >> Is that it? Yeah. >> Yes. >> I'm in. Okay. Hi there. Um Diane O'Brien, 196 A. Um I'm but I'm here tonight as the executive board from the
Anchor Food Pantry. Um I just wanted we as a board would like to thank you very much to uh for approving our lease for another year. Um, we also would especially like to thank you all for allowing us to use the Reach Arts building um during the SNAP um SNAP
benefits crisis that we experienced in November. Um, we just wanted to let you know that on an average we serve 120 families a week. Um, that includes 20 to 25 deliveries uh to um some of our senior citizens and our folks that um
can't get to the pantry. We've been going since six years since CO and um in that time we've served over 750 families. Um but that does not include the 200 plus deliveries that we make of full turkey meals that we
deliver at Thanksgiving. Um we are incredibly proud of what we do and um we are more than happy to continue to serve the community. Um we are also very grateful to uh the Swampscott community for continuing to
support us. Um there was an issue brought up last week that um there was some constituents that maybe felt that our hours of operation were limited. Um we seem to feel that with our very small board and our very small volunteer base
and in the six years we have managed to hone um the process and so that we are able to service the people that come in and out of our pantry fairly quickly and we do offer delivery. So um we feel at
this time it's not necessary to extend our hours. However, if we ever felt that we were overwhelmed, we would certainly consider that. But to that point, um I did want to mention that if you are in contact with a constituent or a
family here in Swanscott that for some reason cannot get to us on a Monday and a Wednesday, please reach out to our board. I know you have all our contact information. Um, some of you also have some of my personal, you know, you you have my cell phone and you have some of our board members cell phones. Please
reach out to us and we will make accommodations for any resident of Swampscott or Nahan that requires um to get into the pantry. Um, we have done it before. I can tell you that um both I and Loris Bethanis and Susan Krebs um
are part of our board. We have been called by the police department, the senior center and the school department where we have opened the the pantry on a Friday night at 8:00 because a family was in crisis identified by a police department and we have um so we are we
will we will acquies and bend over backwards to accommodate any resident of Swans. Um, so we just wanted to let you know that that our hours of operation still continue to be Monday from 11 to 1
and on Wednesdays from I believe 5 to 7. Um, but and we do we do offer deliveries on Mondays. So, um, again, thank you so much for approving our lease. Um, again, we are proud and very happy to serve this community and we'll continue to do
so um, with all your support. And just to let you know that there's no Swamscott family, we would we would certainly accommodate whichever Swampscott family that was in crisis. We will certainly do whatever we need to do. Thanks. Thanks for your time.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you, Diane. >> I actually have a um public comment that was emailed to me. Um this is from Mike Keller, precinct 4. Good evening. The Hawthorne property is one of the most
valuable public assets our town owns. Opportunities like this come along once in a generation, and we owe it to our residents to think as boldly as possible about its future. I don't believe this part of town needs more open space. We already have an expansive public open space directly across from Humphrey
Street and along the shoreline. What we are missing is a vibrant waterfront destination that draws people to Swam, supports our local businesses, and generates meaningful revenue for taxpayers. This property should become the crown jewel of our commercial district. Imagine an active year-round destination with indooroutdoor gathering
spaces, waterfront dining, community events, entertainment, and public access that people from across greater Boston choose to visit. Every visitor who comes to Hawthorne will also walk walk Humphrey Street, shop in its stores, dine in its restaurants, and contribute to our locally economy. The purpose of
an RFP is to encourage vision and com competition. We should be inviting the most creative and ambitious ideas possible, not narrowing the possibilities before we've even seen what the market can produce. Quite frankly, the last thing this location needs is another passive open space concept or quote micro forest end quote.
While that idea may have value somewhere else, this is arguably the premier commercial waterfront site in Swampscott. It deserves a use that matches its potential, and provides a lasting return to taxpayers who own it. Let's aim higher than preserving the status quo. Let's seek a proposal that creates jobs, strengthens our tax base,
supports our existing businesses, activates our waterfront year round, and becomes a destination that makes Swampscout proud. This is our chance to create something truly extraordinary. Let's not settle for ordinary. Thank you. Okay. So, um this will end public comment and
we will move on to agenda item one which is now abbreviated I believe just to the uh police department section. Correct. >> That's correct. And if we could turn it over to the chief to speak a little bit about each of the individuals. Uh the individuals are here with family
members. So I think it's a great opportunity. >> Wonderful. Thank you. >> Good evening. I'm going to have everybody stand up with me since we do everything as a team. Uh, I'll call on uh, Lieutenant Brendan Reed, Lieutenant Steve Luck,
Officer Steve Coughlin, Officer Nate Espanol, Officer Samantha Holy, and Officer Kevin Kaufman. Won't you stand up here with everyone? I want to ensure that everybody sees them. I won't have to
make I won't make them speak tonight. >> We do have people working tonight. fun. >> Before I begin, I just wanted to say thank you to the select board for allowing us to not only fill these positions and our town administration for allow not only allowing us to fill
these positions, but to pick the absolute best people possible to serve in our community. So for that, I just want to recognize the select board. Thank you very much. So tonight we I want us we want to celebrate another sign significant
milestone for our department and our town. The swearing in of our newest officers and the recognition of our two newly promoted lieutenants. Today is not mere merely ceremonial but it's a broader commitment to the safety, well-being, and future of Swampscott.
Tonight, I'd like to celebrate the following personnel who are here and perhaps uh when I call on them, have their loved ones stand up as well. So, first off, I would like to uh recognize I I'll have you stand with me.
Lieutenant, >> I'm putting them on the spot. They put me on the spot every day. I get to put them on the spot today. Lieutenant uh Rene, who has been newly promoted to lieutenant. Brendan Re is a 20-year veteran of the police department. He has a master's degree from the UMass LOL and
he's a recipient of over 49 accommodations, one including a life-saving award. He's an police academy instructor, field training officer, public information officer, assistant harbor master, and allaround great guy. Tonight we celebrate his
promotion. And before we celebrate him, I want to celebrate uh I want Sandy and the kids to stand up. We're >> I want to thank them as well. So, congratulations, BRENDAN. Lieutenant Steve Luck.
Lieutenant Luck is a 24-year veteran of the police department. Steve has a bachelor's degree from Bridgewater State University and has over 56 accommodations in his career. He is our go-to, my go-to special events coordinator coordinator and incident
commander during special events. He's our field training program coordinator, mental health task force committee member, and allound steady, reliable, and most trusted and respected individual in our department. We thank I'll have Sarah if if she's
here. Oh, stand up because you're making a big commitment as well. Um tonight we celebrate his promotion and we know that he'll do great things for our department. Thank you. I think before I begin, I'm going to
have um Officer Steve Coughlin's family stand up. So everybody knows Steve's family. So Steve is our first ever out of state lateral police officer
>> from the Houston Police Department. >> Steve originally grew up in Malden and he graduated with a bachelor's degree from Salem State University. He will complete his field training program this week and we couldn't be more excited to have him. So, thank you to Steve's
family and congratulations, STEVE. Come on up, Officer Nate Espanol and his family. Thank you. Nate is originally from Lynn. He previously worked in a family automotive business and vol volunteers much of his
time with his religious congregation. He recently graduated from the police academy and is currently in our field training program. I want to thank you for allowing us to have Nate with us and he will be getting married in August. So that's that's more uh diff more
difficult than the uh police academy. Officer Samantha Holy. >> Is any of your family here? >> Oh, you're already standing. Thank you. Samantha is uh originally from Lynn. She has a bachelor's degree from Salem State University and a master's degree in
homeland security from Endicott. She's a has a proud family history of police officers in her family and is following in their footsteps. We know that she will bring much value to our police department and we're so glad to have her. Last but not least, Officer Kevin
Kaufman. And I'll have Kevin's parents stand up. Kevin Kaufman graduated from the academy in midappril. He graduated originally from Anamarie College with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice. And prior to
coming to Swampscott, he worked for the Department of Homeland Security with the TSA. He graduated from the field training program and is out and about patrolling our streets now. So, I didn't know if Kevin would be here tonight and I said, "If you see a young kid,
good-looking dapper young man in uniform with a great smile, you know that's him. Thank you. SO THIS IS for all our police officers. Whether you are newly entering this profession or taking on even greater responsibilities in the department
requires immense courage, resilience, and a profound sense of duty. The badge and the patch we wear is a symbol entrusted upon us to stand as guardians and protectors with an unwavering amount of integrity, character, and commitment
not only to this badge, but most importantly to our community. Remember, a community can only thrive when it feels safe and only when it deeply trusts those who are sworn to protect it. To our newly installed officers, remember every day you wear this
uniform. know that you carry the hopes, the respect, and the full backing of our entire town. We ask that you be fair, compassionate, and have a heart filled with the desire to serve in all your daily interactions.
To the family of those loved ones here today, thank you for sharing them with us. We recognize the quiet sacrifices you have made and will make in the years to come and we are deeply grateful for your support. Welcome and
congratulations to all of you. We're gonna have them together. That's an easy picture. >> We're going to try to line up for a picture. >> Congratulations. Amazing. Thanks for
>> the second me. This won't be a stretch. >> Steve, come on. >> Take a knee. Take a knee. >> I feel like I'm a little taller than you. >> Everybody over here. All
>> right. Thank you, Chief, for um those very kind words and thank you to all the new hires and newly appointed title holders. I certainly appreciate every time the police force comes, I always thank the families because it's such a sacrifice that they're gifting to us to
instill these officers to help us every day. And I'm glad that they got to join us for that. So, thank you very much, chief, and uh town administrator for making that happen. >> Nice to see you.
>> We're just giving him a moment to file out. >> Thanks, Nick. >> Nate is getting married in 11 days. >> That's great. I'm glad we did that. >> Yeah, >> 11 days. Wow. And the room
>> could be worse. >> Sam Holy played basketball for classical. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. She's pretty great basketball player. >> Forward. Yeah. >> I have a feeling. >> Yep. Lethal. >> Really good. >> Okay.
Think we're ready or we need him another minute? >> We're ready. >> Okay. Wonderful. We will now move on to the appointment of registar. Um Michael Bryson will be appointed. Um for those of you who don't know we lost our um
current registar Paul Doli passed away um and I think I speak on behalf of the entire board when we're sending thoughts and prayers to his daughter Amber and um his wife uh they live on Readington and they're longtime friends um of my family
and sending our warmest regards uh to get through this tough time. But we are here for the appointment of his prior position to Michael Bryson temporarily. >> And would you like Katie to speak a little bit?
>> Perfect. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, as chair said, we are filling a board of registars temporarily. Michael Bryson, our assistant clerk, is available and willing to take the
position with little time to certify current nomination papers and petitions. That's why it it needs to be done in a timely manner. So, we're requesting the temporary appointment while I continue to diligently work to find replacements.
I'm here to answer any questions. >> What is the process for uh replacing finding a full-time replacement? So it starts out with sending certified letters to the chairs of the republica Republican and Democratic committees which was done in the spring to fill a
vacancy that has been on the board and we got back a name of somebody that is in an elected position currently for the town. I did speak with that person and they do not want to vacate their elected position. So it was back to the drawing board. So now I have been in contact
with the chairs of the committees to see if they have anybody else. I've also been talking to some people in town looking for volunteers that would be willing to do it. It's um a little tough when a lot of the people that want to do the election stuff are currently pole
workers. So, I don't want to necessarily take away that option for them being a pole worker. So, there are some people that I'm going to approach and say, "Hey, this opportunity is available if you are willing and interested slashavvailable."
Otherwise, it can't be anybody that is elected in the town or appointed by the select board. >> Is it advertised on the website or on our social media? Like, how do people know? Maybe there's somebody out there like that might be interested. Is do are
we advertising it? >> We have not advertised because it is something that has traditionally in pretty much every community works through the two organized committees >> uh in order to identify someone for these roles, but it's certainly something we could add. >> For sure. Sure.
>> What is the mechanics in our own bylaws? Is it to be assigned by the select board? >> No, >> it's all governed in the mass general laws. >> Okay. So, when you need to fill a vacant spot
temporarily, you're saying we are authorized by state law to do that. Okay. So, I understand. Okay. >> Yes. And as select board members, you do appoint registars permanently as well. Um, it's just this one is going to be a temporary appointment.
>> When is the uh expiration date of the term? >> It is four weeks or if we get somebody else to fill it prior to the four weeks. >> No, I meant like is it a three-year term normally? Is it a
>> Yes, threeear terms. But to clarify, the appointment that we are appointing Mr. Bryson for is a four-week appointment or shorter if we find another candidate. Correct. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Okay.
So, if Go ahead. >> I was going to >> Are there other questions? >> No, I was just going to be happy to make a motion. >> Second. >> Great. So, well, here's the motion. I'll read it out loud because it has to be specific. So the motion would be to appoint Michael Bryson to the position of temporary registar for a period of no
more than four weeks in accordance with the provisions of mass general law chapter 51 section 20 and further that the select board find the services of Mr. Bryson in the position of temporary registar shall be deemed to be within the scope of his duties as assistant town clerk as there exists an immediate
and critical need for a person to serve in the capacity of temporary registar due to the pending statutory matters requiring action by a quorum of the board of registars and where Mr. Mr. Bryson is familiar with the operations of the town's clerk's office, the role of the board of registars, and the
process for the certification of voter signature. As such, the board finds he is uniquely qualified to carry out these duties and shall serve the town in both capacities for the period specified. and further to acknowledge that the town clerk has and
will continue to diligently seek to identify a person for appointment for the permanent position and bring such permanent appointees forward. When she is available and if such person is sworn into office prior to the expiration of four weeks, Mr. Bryson will tempor Mr. Bryson's temporary appointment will
terminate. >> I Yes. So moved what you said. >> So moved. >> Second >> and we must do a roll call vote since I am online. So Mary Ellen, >> hi. Danielle >> I >> Ted >> I >> Wayne >> I
>> and I am an I. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Katie. >> Thank you Katie. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. >> Thank you for coming. >> Anytime. We will move on to item number three discussion and possible vote on water and sewer rates for fiscal year 27.
>> So I have a few slides that I'm going to share. Patrick's here to walk through them. It is largely the same presentation that we gave last week. with a couple of slides that were were requested um in terms of different scenarios that we could follow. Uh and we're happy to answer any questions as
we go. >> How far forward do you want me to go? >> Um I think if we go to slide six, that's where the new material begins. Um, so came before the board at your last
meeting and provided an update on the FY26 preliminary operating results in both the water and sewer fund. And I brought you some information regarding a rate recommendation which was a 4% increase in sewer rates and a 3%
increase in water rates. um got some feedback and I've added supple some supplemental slides we can go through tonight to help inform your decision. Um on the screen here we have FY26 unodudited results for both funds. This
is a little more granular than what was provided uh last time we met. So you can see we had some savings in um budget expenditure budget for both sewer and water fund uh two 2.4% 4% in sewer, 5.7%
in water. Um that's driven largely by some uh personnel savings with people leaving. Um and we also had some savings where um debt wasn't fully loaded in. Um the
timing of some some debt issuance was pushed out a little bit. So we didn't we didn't have that total expense. And then um on the revenue side, we definitely had favorable results which we discussed at the last meeting. They're driven by consumption uh increases uh in excess of
what we estimated. And uh on the bottom of the screen there are my estimate of unodudited retained earnings as of June 30th, 2026. Those will be certified by the do in October typically. Um but I provided figures there. Uh 29% of budget
in the sewer fund, 33% of budget in the water fund. town has a policy that's been in place for um number of years to maintain at least 20% of budget in retained earnings in each fund. Next slide.
Uh so this slide is the rate recommendation I brought to you at our last meeting. Um I've added the relative impact to the average household user on this slide. I think that's helpful just to call it out for everyone who's watching. Um this would mean a on
average a 3.4% 4% increase to the average homeowner's water bill for the year. $13 a quarter or $52 a year is what that works out to be. Um, and setting funds at uh, excuse me, rates at this level will allow us to maintain
retain earnings that'll support some of the capital expenditures we know about that we have to take on over the next five years and help us stabilize rate increases going forward so that we don't have large swings. Next slide.
Um this is a table of the specific rates that um are in place right now. On the lefth hand side, those are our current rates that the board approved last July. And then in the three columns, three sections on the right hand side, there are different increases. Um the first
section is that 3.45% combined increase at the top. That's what I'm recommending. And the relative impact is listed below. And then we have a 2% increase that I um calculated for you all to consider in the relative impact or you know if we were to leave rates
flat what that would mean. Uh on the top of the slide I did put the increase that was passed last year and the typical annual bill for water and sewer for a household in Swampscott. And um all of these will fund the
current year's budget. Um obviously if you choose a lesser rate increase the prospect of retained earnings being you know higher or level at the end of um FY27 reduces. Next slide.
I also prepared just for discussion I was asked to prepare a scenario if we were to draw down our retained earnings to 15% of budget or 20% of budget. Again, our policy is to maintain a minimum of 20% of budget in each fund.
Um, if we were to draw down retained earnings to 15% of budget, that would be a 22% rate decrease. Um, and the relative impact is listed on the bottom of the slide as well. And uh to reduce retained earnings down to
20%, that would lead to a 14% rate increase. And we'd also have to have town meeting appropriate retained earnings in the amounts highlighted in yellow in December uh for that to balance our budget. And leaving those rates at those lower levels, we're spending down fund
balance. We would likely have to have a significant increase next year uh to fund our budget in each fund. Next slide. This slide is a little hard to read. I'm sorry about the size of the uh data
points, but um this is meant to illustrate the rate increases that would be required in the sewer and water funds over the next five years for just cap new capital expenditures and uh general operating increases. So you can see in
FY27 um 28 29 we need 3% 2% 2% uh just to fund those new capital expenditures and um general operating increases. And in water we have you know we have a small
increase in 27 we would need a 3% increase in 28 2 and a half in 29 and 5% in 2030. These are just estimates based on the capital plan. Obviously things will change between now and then. Um and then any increases in our LIN water and
sewer assessments or MWR that we purchase our water from would be on top of these figures. So you can see there's a a you know unsteady kind of need and through rate increases now we can stabilize that for for the the
households that are paying the rates. Next slide. This slide is just pulled forward from our slide deck last year actually when we were talking about passing a large rate increase and what the next 10 years might look like for rate increases going
forward. When we had that conversation we had a desire to stabilize rate increases. So we pass one big increase which we did last year and we have some modest increases in the next, you know, three, four, five years so that we can get to a place where we're leveling off
and we can confidently keep our rate increases at, you know, two, 3%, something that is more in line with expectations um for a household bill increase or inflation. And you can see over time the line on the chart, that's an estimate of
where retained earnings goes. um it goes up and up on the horizon. That's because we have a five-year capital plan, but of course we'll have spending loaded in in years 6 through 10 and beyond that will require us to spend those funds. Um so it's just a forecast, but I thought it'd
be helpful to rehash kind of the larger conversation we had last year when we were looking at such a large increase and the rates that we're proposing this year are in line with kind of what we were anticipating doing this year and the next couple years. Next slide.
These are data points that I pulled on our MWR assessments by fiscal year. You can see those uh fluctuate a little bit over time. Uh they're based on consumption. They run a year and a rears. Um and they run on a calendar year basis for consumption. So uh it's
not it doesn't line up perfectly with our budget cycle, but I thought it would be useful to illustrate. Uh you can see the million gallons of water that we purchase from the MWA listed um by calendar year
and um limb water sewer the amount of water that we're sending to be treated is al also listed on the bottom. Um those are just data points for Yep. >> Lots of questions. >> Okay. I don't I may not be able to answer all your questions on this slide.
>> We could have a whole another conversation. >> I mean if you have more slides to go I'll let you finish. This is this is essentially the end. So, >> okay. So, why am I just kind of picking through the top level data here? You're going >> 486 million gallons to 504 and then
drops down by more than half to 206 in 2026. >> The 2026 figure is just the year to date. >> So, we're only in July. It's >> July. >> That's actually through May. >> Halfway through the year, >> that figure. >> Yeah. it all. Okay. All right. It's not
a projected. It's it's literally as we are now, not FY27 that we've already started. I didn't know if it was FY26 or it's calendar year is what you're saying. Okay. I get >> the flow is calendar year. Yes. >> Okay. So, but if you were to break that apart in terms of like scenario, we're still
less. We're if we're at 6 months, we're >> as of May, so it's 5 months. May so. So, it's even less. Okay. >> So, you'd be in between 24 and 25 if you did the math, Wayne. >> Yep. I get it. we'd be at like 494ish. >> Yeah, it's in line. >> Held steady.
>> Was more usage in the summer. >> But yeah, and I also see that our um so in 2024 our flow back to Lin Water and sewer was significantly higher. >> It still remains significantly higher by almost 30%.
>> And that's attributed to what? um could be a number of things, but I think storm water that's flowing >> and being treated is a factor. >> Yeah. >> And as we do work, that number should go down. >> Is that something that we're actively
talking about, not just from the infiltration, but I know that we're actually pumping water into the sewer system, into the sanitary sewer system >> and being treated. And of course that's pretty clear when
all the communities feeding lin water and sewer. You know they have when you have heavy rains the sanitary sewer has to release from too much pressure in the system. So obviously it's >> massive amounts being pumped particularly heavy rainstorms. But that that tells me it's a real you know it's
a real cost impact. If that was level, how much how much how much is that costing us >> the flow from >> the additional sewer flow >> being treated? >> Um, I don't have a figure on that exactly for you, but >> you could have an estimate.
>> I'd like to put a number to whatever it is that's over the MWR. >> Mhm. >> Coming Kazinta and the Gazata. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome, >> Patrick. So, what's your recommendation?
Can you go over that again? >> Yeah, I can recap. So, my recommendation is to raise sewer rates 4%, water rates 3%. >> And that would mean the average household would pay $52 more a year this year for water and sewer.
>> That's in line with what we decided last year, right? Is it didn't we decide on a structured plan for the following three years? Last year, >> we did. The plan was to pass a fairly large increase last year to um get us to
a certain place. Uh that was passed and this recommendations in line with the path forward that we discussed. >> Great. Thank you. Yep. >> Patrick though. >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead, Katie. >> Go ahead, Mariel. Um, I think what I'm
hearing is that yes, we said we were going to get a little bit more stable going forward, but I think not seeing what the actual what are we actually looking at doing next year, how many dollars are really going into capital
and then how many dollars are going into capital over the next four years. What is the actual plan? because we did take we we took off the SRF loan, >> the application for the SRF loan because we weren't even going to be able to finish the work we were doing. So, one
concern I have is I'm not really seeing a a plan on exactly how much money we're looking at spending over the next five years and what those assumptions, those dollar assumptions are going to really be. So, I'm I'm all for making sure, of course, making sure things are stable,
but not really seeing a little clearer data puts me in a a concerned position as far as just going up 4% versus 2 and a half% 3%. Um, I don't want to go back into retained earnings, but I also want to be really
lean because that was a hefty increase that we gave people last year and I received a a lot of feedback on that and there's a lot of hardship, believe it or not, for for people in in a position of uh being on a fixed budget. So, not
having those numbers is a little bit of a problem for me. So the the the work that we based this on was the accepted 5-year capital plan. >> Mhm. >> And I know at the last meeting Patrick said that the SRF, which is we pushed it out. We didn't remove it. The idea is
that we believe we'll be able to complete the work in phase 2B and phase 2 C will not be necessary. So we moved it out a year. We didn't include it in the vote at town meeting. It wasn't that it was completely eliminated. >> We didn't we didn't apply for it though, >> right? We pushed it out a year so that we would be able to apply in the future
and come back to town meeting in the future and say we don't think we're going to complete it with 2B. We do need it. >> So it still it lives in and out year. The other thing that we've sort of kept an eye on and Gino was I think rightly concerned that we keep an eye on is that
we're spending money on the force main study this year going into next year. >> Right. >> That will be a significant expense that we don't have a number for right now. And so we're trying to be as reasonable and responsible as possible with a predictable sort of idea for the rateayer that it
will stay in the range that you all had discussed when you sort of did the catchup year which was hard and we recognize that which is why we don't we want to be as reasonable as possible. But the idea is that if we're predictable for the rate payers and we know that this big expense is coming that we we'll be able to put a number to
hopefully this fiscal year when the force main study is complete. um that is a significant expense that lives out there without a number within this part of our budget. >> Okay, that's a good point. >> So, it's sort of a question around do do we want to hold it as like I think there's a stabilization account as an
example. Do we want to move some of it to and that stabilization is expressly used for capital and there's different ways that we can look to make sure that everyone feels comfortable that this money is going to go to the right place when it's needed. Um, but it's it's certainly, you know, it's reasonable to
say is two and a quarter, 2 and 1/2, three. That's that's why we wanted to provide as much information as possible that was requested in the last meeting so you all could make an informed decision. >> Does this money can just sit in the enterprise fund? >> Yeah. >> Yes. So retained earnings are >> retained earnings. >> Yeah. Like
>> remain within the enterprise fund to be appropriated for any purpose within that sphere. >> How much do we have in that right now? in pertain to earnings. >> It's on the >> It's on this side. Yeah, >> it's actually right there on the bottom of this slide on the screen.
>> That's my unodudited estimate of where we are. So 1 million in the sewer fund and one and a half in the water fund. I just want to go back to the infrastructure conversation really quick because I remember Gino very explicitly saying, you know, sort of what keeps him up at night is that those force mans and
that it's not a if, it's a when sort of situation. Um, and the whole conversation last year was really trying to factor in somewhat of a wild card, like we know it's going to happen. It's very expensive. We don't know sort of when we're going to have to do it, but
we know we are going to have to do it. and how can we do our best to stabilize out the increases even taking into account that risk. Um, so I totally understand not wanting to just increase for the sake of
increasing, but I think if we have targets like that, um, that we are saving for specifically knowing that it is to prevent a large hike the year of one of those when instead of coming back to the rateayer and really, you know,
like having to increase the way we had to last year. I think it is far easier for families to take that increase than to take the hundreds increase in in an out year when something catastrophic happens. >> I think that's a I think that's a good
point and I'd like to make a motion to increase the uh sewer rates. Increase sewer cons. Oh, wait. Where did So, where are your actual rates here? >> This I think it's 3.45%. That's blended
>> 3.45. >> So I make So I make a motion to increase the recommended rates by >> it's three and two or what was that? >> Three and four, isn't it? >> There's some specific motion language for you on page 13. >> Do you? >> Thank you. There is
>> Here we go. Let's go to that >> page 13. >> Yes. >> I don't have a page. >> Yeah, >> my slide goes 12 to 15. Patrick, would you like to read the language? Do you have it? >> Yeah, he's bringing it over. Read it.
>> Okay. Thank you, Patrick. >> Thank you, Patrick. >> Just chicken down. >> Okay. So, I'd like to move to adopt the water and sewer rates as follow. Water rates tier one, $10.67 per 100 cubic feet. Tier 2, $11 per 100
cubic feet. Tier three, 1137 per 100 cubic feet. Base rate 1729 per quarter for all tiers. Sewer rates tier one $8.79 per 100 cubic feet. Tier 2 $9.93 per
cubic feet. Tier three $11 per cubic feet. Base rate 2462 per quarter for all tiers. Second. >> All right, we will have to roll call. Wayne >> I. >> Ted
>> I. Danielle >> Illan >> I >> and I am an I. Thank you Patrick. >> I do I do want to make one comment and I would I would like to make a request that for next year um we look at what would it cost to eliminate these tiers
and to just charge for what does it cost for water. Okay. Okay. because I I am worried about these tears. >> Not I just want to put a little bit more
thought into it over the next 12 months. >> And Patrick, also if you could let let us know what the cost of that extra pumping back to Lin Water and Sewer. >> Yeah, I'll work that up. >> Okay, you got it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Patrick, for all your work on this. You're welcome. Thank you for
having me. anytime on a Tuesday night right >> after working all day. >> All right, we will move on to discussion on parking enforcement. >> So, I'll just briefly introduce the the chief and the team are here. He has a
number of slides to walk through and he and I have spoken a little bit last week. We anticipate um that the board will have questions as well. So, uh I'll turn it over to the chief to do the presentation and and we can sort of take it from there. >> Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Nick. Uh I wanted to provide a uh I know there
there's been a lot of questions on parking enforcement. So I wanted to provide uh more of a high level summary for you and allow you to uh any questions that you might have. Uh myself and the two newly promoted lieutenants are here to give you more of a street
level view of uh I can give you more the 30,000 foot level uh view, but they can tell you what they have been seeing on the street. And I think that's that's really important. Uh next slide. So from January of this year to June of
this year, mid-year review, uh there's been 576 parking citations that have been issued. Um that's if if you uh look at it, we are just going about to be uh higher than our average total, which is
for the last three years is about 860 uh parking citations per year. And I have a couple graphs um that you can look at. So we'll go to the next slide. The top 10 parking spots where we are issuing
parking citations. Uh number one is the the train station, the the depot. There was a there were 105 citations, parking citations that were issued there uh within the past 6 months. Uh number two is Humphrey Street. We have issued 58
citations. And just uh for your knowledge, these are citations that were given to us uh by Kelly and Ryan. So those are verified uh our parking uh citation uh organization. So they are
verified citations that were given out. Uh next is I know uh gentleman here earlier spoke about then in square we've issued 48 uh parking citations and many of those are in uh parking within the fire lanes. So there have been 48 within
the the past 6 months. What we've seen is uh there was an influx of parking citations during the month or during uh January 25th uh through February 7th for the snow for impeding snow removal. again the safety u priority in that the
fire lanes handicaps uh that's what we're seeing in Vinnon Square and the Uber drivers absolutely correct um the the other area is again something that we have dealt with uh for many years is the the beach sticker requirements next
slide next slide please >> it's not working >> oh it's not working sorry I thought Shannon was doing Again, I just wanted to give an an update on the top 10 parking violations of what uh
we've seen in the last 6 months. Uh with it being resident sticker violations, impeding snow removal, recreation stickers, and so forth. Next slide, please. Again, this is just a rehash of uh what
we talked about. 105 say 105 citations in the near this swampscott depot. What we are seeing what our officers and uh supervisors are seeing are the spillover uh from Colombia, Maple, Middle Sex. Uh
that's where we see that uh a lot of out of town commuters start parking which is causing um these these parking issues for our residents. Next slide please. Again, that's just a rehash. We can skip that
slide. Most of the concentration of the parking citations are occurring from 9 to noon. So again, that is um and and our highest days are Sunday and Saturday respectively for uh beach sticker
violations. So we see of the a large influx of uh our latest citations, parking citations coming from the beach uh beach areas. Next slide please. This is uh this is uh just to give you an idea of
what Mr. Connors and I are talking about as well as my team and several other departments in that we need to look at creating rules for and consistent rules and guidelines for park enforcement regulations. Uh it took me probably a
couple years to figure this out. uh you know on Columbia Street near the depot on the even side is resident only but on the odd side it's a recreation sticker or a a town sticker is um and I I we completely understand that why that is
because it's affecting our residents in that in that area of town. Um but there's also things that we should probably start looking at if there's other ways of um conducting parking enforcement and regulations. again, uh, Humphrey Street from Humphrey and
Readington to about Marshall Street. Uh, there's a 1-hour limit on the even side and a two-hour limit on the on the water side, the ocean side. So, I don't have the historical knowledge of why that is. Maybe that's something we can or should
look at just just for food for thought for the board. Um, and then the other areas of town. I know last weekend or the weekend before we had an issue at Kids Cove um where uh individuals are
parking and they're actually blocking other vehicles from getting out and so um our officers are out there two cars trying to find somebody on the beach. Is this your vehicle? You need to move it uh right away. So we see that issue. Uh
again, that's for a larger discussion for the board and and our town administrator uh to look at instituting some type of fee schedule or some type of uh delineated markings uh for that for that area.
>> Uh let me stop here for a second on this side. >> Absolutely. >> So I think it was two and a half years ago at this point. Maybe it's longer. The time all bursts together, but we have we're having a conversation about um beach parking um on Beach A and sort
of in the Philips Beach area. And we that I think started the conversation to spur to increase the fines to $75. So, this might not be a question you can answer right now, but I'm wondering why the language didn't allow for all the fines related to parking to increase to
$75. uh or if they if whatever motion we made wasn't specific enough or because I I know for certain we also then revisited all the fees. I think it was that fall after beach season >> and um at the time Amy Sorrow came in
with all the fees related. Maybe they were not safety related. Maybe they were just fees within town hall. But I think we obviously need consistency which is what you're trying to highlight here. It's very confusing for you all. It's confusing for the residents. Um, but
also I thought we already did it, so I just want to figure out why there's this inconsistency. >> It's twoprong, Katie, right? Because it's the fees are obviously a huge discrepancy, right? Why is it $75 on Ocean but 25 on Humphrey Street? But the
other piece of this is the sticker issue, right? So a resident sticker versus a recreation sticker, but they're really the same thing, right? Or they're not. They look different. >> They're not the same thing, right? Okay. Yeah. Yes, >> they are different. >> Correct. >> So, they look different.
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, I was just going to say so, uh, we did speak about some of this, um, when the board met for its like, um, goal setting. >> And part of the conversation that came up related to this is the idea that perhaps we would create
zones, >> right, >> parking zones, right, area where a resident would know from this street to this street is their residential zone, >> right? And that is where they can park without issue when they get that, you know, resident sticker and that stickers
potentially could be colored by zone, right? A lot I think a lot of other towns do that. >> Um, and if it's, you know, the depot zone and the depot zone is yellow and you have a yellow parking sticker, you can park in it because that means you're a resident in that zone and that's where you're meant to park. But doesn't mean
you can go on to Ocean A and park with your resident sticker if that sticker's red. Um, so something like that we sort of floated around uh talking about and figuring out a way to to make it uh equitable across the the town so that
each resident felt like it was able to park in its neighborhood without an issue. >> What is it now? It's >> so if I have a resident if if I have a resident sticker and I live um by the train station, >> am I when I get that resident sticker,
is there any information that says you can use this within three or four blocks of your house? Is there any education there? >> No. >> That resident sticker is obtained at the police department and there's no charge to it. So when the officer issues that they provide two visitor passes with it
and that sticker their person is told where to put it and also what it's used for. But the the miscommunication might be or the misinterpretation is resident and then they feel I I'm a resident of Swampscott. I can park anywhere where I see resident. >> Um the recreation is more galvanized to
a particular like the zone that Miss Failen talked about. You can park anywhere there says recreation parking. So, >> right. I'm just wondering if we have to go with if we have to go with colored and this and that, if we can just make a policy that you can park within X amount of space of your residency because when
you write a ticket, you bring up the license plate number and who owns it and because you're already doing the work right there, right? >> Yes. >> So, >> yeah, but how I guess how would you'd have to put every single license plate in to know. How would you how else would you know? >> If you're writing a if you're writing a
ticket on a car, aren't you writing the ticket? It's a hand it's a handwritten ticket on a on a piece of paper that's multi I can show you and you don't necessarily query it into the state website. Sometimes they might. Okay. >> Um but if you are quickly doing a street
like Columbia and you're scanning it, we instruct >> the resident to put their sticker on the driver's side rear >> so that as you drive by you can quickly see I don't see one. That car is eligible for a ticket. >> So that's why you're saying you need to you should have a color. >> I think a color zone is a great idea.
the colored zone would allow for >> it's not interpretation distinction. >> What is what is a reasonable distance from Columbia? You know like the >> whether it's three blocks, two blocks, whatever. >> One other question that arises that if I live on Burl Street, am I allowed to park on resident on Maple A, which is
adjacent to it? In theory, I you know, that's up for debate, but in I I get what they're trying to do. Um >> it just seems to be like so it's an education issue, right? Because you have to think some people that are just moving to Swampscott have no idea what the differentiator is and where they can
park where they can't. And to your point, they think they have a resident sticker. They can park wherever. Right. So that's one problem. But to me, it's not just parking. Parking coincides in my mind with safety, right? Because there's a there's a bigger piece here. Sure, we have problems with parking and
people getting tickets, but we have problems with just safety in terms of drivers driving. So, it's a bigger it's a bigger issue in my mind. I I correlate the driving with parking and safety. >> The safety component we think of, I think, as a patrol officer would be can
a firetruck get down the street. Is it parking on both sides that's bottlenecking it? >> And that that is a huge issue. The other one is the sidewalk threshold. Can a person pushing a baby stroller get by safely without having to go out into the street? >> I I'd be be good to identify those
areas. You know, I think of Cedar Hill Terrace for instance, right, that we've talked about. You know, there is no definition of road to sidewalk, and I do have concerns. It's one example of many areas in town that are very tight, right, is coming up with at least some consistent rules
>> as to what defines the limit to where they can park so that there is safe passage for pedestrians. I just think it's it's just inconsistent. >> Can I make the suggestion? And I'm just I'm fast forwarding a little bit and I see you have a nice slide here about modernizing swamps parking. That might
be a good guide for us to give us some talking points to organize our conversation. >> Well, I think do you have >> I think that's the >> Sorry. Go ahead, Katie. >> Yeah, that's exactly >> that's the next slide. Sorry.
>> That is exactly what we're we're trying to get to. not only an overview of the parking citations and what we're seeing uh on the street level, but uh really looking at reinstituting, reconsidering our parking reg regulations townwide.
That is um just everything that we just talked about about what's resident versus recreation, what area is uh resident versus recreation. Um and and some of the things in creating uh universal townwide access for for
parking. I'm not saying that'll work. Just a just an idea to to spur some thought for for the board to consider. Um and so that's that's truly what I wanted to get out with with this presentation tonight. >> Um I mean that is the essentially the
bulk of it of of the conversation. And I did want to I I know that at one point we had during the school year we definitely have a traffic safety officer or we had in the past and I really think in terms of calling it a traffic officer that's really not what it should be. It
should be a safety officer, right? And I think we need to get back to that. I think that's a key piece. We were talking about the school issue earlier >> and you know the the issues that might have been created by the new elementary school to revisit that because of the neighborhood and because of the safety
of the kids and I think that this is right in line with that but we definitely need a point person um from >> Yes. And that and that is uh you know that's why such a big deal with the with the new hires because that's why we had to one of the reasons why we had to reinstitute
>> uh officer Kevin Re back into patrol. uh while we had a number of vacancies and positions to fill, but uh our our hope is that it he will be back before the school year. Absolutely. >> He was tremendous with officer Wilson at it and really for the school year time
it you know it worked beautifully but that's not the only problem we have. Obviously there are other safety concerns and parking issues and I think we need to dedicate a body to really address those things. >> Yes. And just to close this out um for the next slide uh and the following two
slides just to close it out it one of the other things that that we had discussed is um creating a consistent fine schedule as uh Katie uh or or Ted may have brought brought up tonight and uh in looking at other areas it's not
widely publicized and I was looking for Lynn Danvers uh sus Marblehead Salem it's not widely publicized Most of them start at $50 for parking violations. Not all because it's very hard to find. Uh unless you actually
have a a cit parking citation from that town or city, will you know? Um but generally it's been approximately 50 from what I've seen in in the surrounding communities. Um, and
one of the other suggestions is to I saw on the city of Salem uh website they have an a map. It would be like an EZRI map that shows the parking restrictions throughout the city and where uh where people can and should be parking versus
resident parking. I mean um even going through their website, they charge uh $10 per year for every resident parking. I'm not saying I'm not suggesting uh instituting that, but just uh just another food for thought. And um when I
look at Parkopedia, right, and I'm looking for parking in the city, it shows where all the street parking is, how much the street parking is. >> Yeah. >> There's no reason if you know, we couldn't, you know, work within that app technology to be able to make that uh
incredibly visual for for anybody coming into town. Have we ever considered or have we considered at all um going back to having a parking matron or a literally like a ticket meter lady? I don't know what to call I don't know what the term is, but a parking park enforcement.
>> Thank you. That's not an actual police officer where we're having to divert somebody that's a patrolman or Yeah. >> you know in in a higher level position to actually just focus on >> writing tickets. >> Yes, definitely. That is so sorry. I just have to ask, could you also just
are we short staffed? Is that the problem why tickets aren't being written? >> I think we're on track to exceed um our our averages. So, we have I think there's one position that we kept unfilled due to budget uh constraints.
But when all of these officers that I uh announced tonight hit the street, we will be merely fully staffed at patrol officers. So to answer uh your question, Danielle, about um one of the things that we
discussed was right now according to the CBA, it's an officer's uh job, okay, for parking enforcement. So we would be violating C the CBA if we have but that's something that we can absolutely and and Nick had suggest suggested maybe
that's something that we revisit and maybe uh midterm bargain >> right maybe like an thing you know actually looking at the >> I think there's a real value to that because I think some of this is also data driven >> and we don't necessarily have all the data we need to understand how
enforcement where enforcement should focus how it should focus education and I know it's difficult Chief, you and I had this conversation outside Nick's office the other day. The the extraction of data with the abilities you have through um the technology is difficult
and maybe if it were um you know outside of the scope of officers and somebody who you know was able to sort of facilitate the data differently, it might be helpful to us to understand and ascertain where the needs are a little bit better.
Um, I also want to go Yeah, go ahead. >> So, Katie, were you suggesting possibly using, you know, our established GI GIS system? >> Yeah, I mean some sort of technology. Wayne, I don't I'm not Phil I'm not familiar with Parkopedia, but I mean something like that sounds interesting. And um
>> I'm not suggesting Parkopedia specifically. I was just saying the GIS the mapping. >> Yeah. >> In general. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, I'm sure there's technology that will facilitate that coupled with a a spec like a person that's not an officer who would be able to, you know, dedicate 40 hours to
understanding and analyzing data, not just writing tickets um and being able to educate folks um coming to us and educating us where the trouble spots are, where the hot spots are, how we can help educate our community to understand them. I just wanted to go back a slide.
Um, and I know that we just we were talking about a proposed solution and townwide access potentially was on the table. I think it's difficult in three square miles of diverse of diversity to
have open parking. I think, you know, like nobody has I don't have a driveway, but nobody's interested in parking on my street cuz it's a dead end, you know, in between Whole Foods and Town Hall. So, no, like it's not a hot pocket for people to park. But if if I were a
resident who didn't have a driveway, you know, by town hall, then it's really important to me that I'm able to, you know, park my car out front of my house and, you know, take my stroller out or take my groceries out or, you know, whatever the need is. So, I I do want to
be thoughtful about um you know, the difference between you know, equality and equity and trying to figure out what where that middle ground is so that taxpayers are still feeling like they're able to get the things that they need in their small piece of the community. Um
especially when it's you know the rail community, the rail the MBTA area when it's the beach area where it's town hall area which we know is high frequency and we know people are parking there and we know sometimes people are overstaying parking limits there. Um
>> and the and >> the annual residency verification is a really interesting piece that you have there. I mean stickers and that would that would limit stickers to solely residents to be able to benefit from the program that that really is an in Do you
have any recommendation on that Nick or any thought on whether or not that's something we could implement or >> the the places we were talking about are all places that do an annual permit and it could be that the color changes it could just be that the year changes but it's an opportunity to make it as simple as possible on the enforcement side to
be like it's red and has a 26 great >> right rather than it's a faded blue. That's >> we'll tell you each year the new design that comes out for me it was great because it stood out so much and from 30 ft away you could see that. Um we did institute a new CAD entry in our
database called parking enforcement which is officer initiated compared to sometimes we might have an MV parking problem which might be phone generated. So we've had over 250 since May 12th when that was implemented of officer initiated parking concerns. So to the
point about the fire lane that has been a huge help for us because it has been painted. It's clearly defined and we can now ticket it and we have been doing that. That's to your point. But even as so far as the 9 to 10 a.m. 6:00 to 10:00 a.m. at Columbia Street, that's a
time-sensitive area. So that's why you might see the average time between 9 and 12 because the officer that's assigned that section of town likely goes there right out of the gate. So those statistics that we had, are those just tickets issued for parking as opposed to like moving violations, not speeding or
anything? >> Correct. Yeah, that's correct. So I and one of the things that we that we learned was uh if I have I have six different supervisors, even more working different 24 hours a day. We need real
time data to for our supervisors to know what areas should we be uh enforcing be looking at uh because as an officer on the street you already know where the parking issues are but the the data is not coming to us and that's that's
something that uh we are discussing with Kelly and Ryan to to send us that data weekly. We send that information to Mr. Connors, but it's it would be good to know exactly where our enforcement has been. Um, and and just extracting this
data took me about a week because it's not >> it's not an easy process. >> Uh, and with our CAD or our our dispatch system. So, I it sounds like you're kind of getting to the answer to the question I'm about to ask, but how many different zones
>> do you imagine there being for individual residents if you had to split it up? >> So, I mean talking about like if I can jump in, we don't have that answer. Yes, >> we don't have that answer now and we cannot make an informed recommendation. Now, this would fall for me under the
same idea that we talked about in my report or that I talked about in my report where we need the professional staff that are closest to it and then also the administration. So, Gino and I would be the ones on our side >> making sure that we come back to you with well-informed recommendations rather than seat of our pants like two,
four, one, you know, whatever it is. >> That's okay. I just want to ask just put put the question out there. So, you're not ready yet. It's fine. >> Right. Clearly it's but it's really the question of universal versus zones and I I feel like we've heard tonight that there's an interest in zones. >> Obviously the select board goal setting
meeting was something that I was about so I didn't hear that. >> Um and this this would be the type of thing that I think where we would benefit from professional staff getting together. So it's not >> you know driven by >> a neighborhood that's really highly impacted for a period of time being the
squeaky wheel and we address that but we don't think about how it impacts the other parts of the community. Okay. >> Right. It does have it's not just police, right? It's fire, it's DPW, it's there's a lot of different departments at town hall that could kind of >> triage this, right? And create like a
meeting group or some type of working group to really address it and tackle not just this, but you know, other areas of safety concern. Even even a request like a putting speed bumps in somewhere we should base off a the mobile speed board, not the fact that
>> an individual believes it's let's get a couple of weeks of the mobile data and be able to say you're right or >> we get three cars in the middle in the morning that are all flying through and >> right >> we need to make sure there's enforcement and education but the solution may not be a speed bump as I just think that if
we get into a model where we're more focused on collecting a little bit of data working with staff that are >> enforcing educating or closest to it >> uh and we come back to you with those types of recommendations. It gives everyone >> a better foundation to make the final decision. >> And that was sort of where
>> I'm suggesting we go uh and certainly what we plan to do on Monday with the chiefs and engineering staff on >> from a policy point of view. I think there's a few things that we have to look at this through as you work with professional staff to provide a lens on providing those recommendations.
Looking through the ticket report, I noticed there were to me there were really two types of tickets. There's public safety tickets and there's what I'm going to call annoyance tickets. Not moving your out of your two-hour spot, somebody without a wreck sticker at the beach or at the fish house, whatever. >> But the fact that we have a $25 ticket
for the fire lanes at Vinon Square when everybody sees the Door Dash drivers, like I saw one tonight. Um, I think we need to I would encourage us to look at a a model of there's two tiers of tickets and somebody in a fire lane should not be getting charged $25. >> I think we have to have that on the next
agenda. >> Yep. >> Agreed. >> I I think we're a little honestly I think we're a little When I saw that these tickets were 25, I thought, how could these be 25? We voted for 75. >> That's exactly what I How is this possible? So, I really want an understanding
>> of what happened here that not that you're on the hook for it, but but how did we go? How did we go from voting for 75 down to 25? I'd like an answer to that, >> right? >> But going forward, what do we want to use tickets for? Revenue or for prevention? To me, it's the answer is
clearly prevention. We are not using everything. Agreed. Agreed. I don't care if you leave. >> So, if we're doing it for prevention, then we need to make sure it's excessive enough where $25, at least in my perspective, is an annoyance. $100 is >> this is this is exactly the conversation when we raised them to $75, Ted, because
at the beach people were just like, "Oh, $25 to park here for the day. This is cheaper than any other neighboring beach, so we'll just take the ticket." That is why they became $75 because then $75 became prohibitive instead of uh you know, a parking fee, right?
>> So, I thought that we just blanketed across. We'll look back at the meeting. We'll see what the language was. Maybe we've already done this and we just have to catch up with ourselves, which is unfortunate, but we can do that. Otherwise, we can put it on the next agenda for August to talk about. >> And frankly, I don't I don't think $75 is a big enough ticket if somebody's
parking in a p in a fire lane. Handicap, I think, is already $100 from what I could tell. >> I've been told it can raise up to 300 per to go to hundreds and hundreds of dollars, but somebody's parking in a fire lane. Come on. That's that's not somebody forgot something, >> right? Well, there's a difference between someone's got their blinkers on,
they're running in for two seconds or waiting for somebody as opposed to hard parking and you're gone. >> No, I don't think anybody should be in a fire zone to be honest. Blinkers on or not. I'll leave that physically in the car. Police officers who are going to make that enforcement. >> I think we're getting into the the question that I talked about last week,
which is there is significant discretion that is left to them. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> To decide is someone did they ask them to move along and they refused if they were waiting in the car? Yeah, you officers and that is left to them by law. So, I just want to be cognizant of that. But we my point is we as a board
need to come up to with a policy understanding of do we want public safety tickets to be excessive enough where you think you issue once and nobody want to be deterred. >> Right. Right. >> And what's that correct dollar amount? To me it's more than $75 because if I get a $100 ticket I'm really going to not that I would but >> and I think to to define what you say is
a nuisance is 25 versus 75 versus 100. My my bigger question would be is that Door Dash driver, not calling out Door Dash specifically, but any one of the >> delivery driver >> the delivery drivers, you know, are they >> can you look up, hey, have they received five tickets before and it really is a nuisance or this is
>> that was >> is that part of the discretion process? >> We can't see that right at the spot of the time of the infraction. study it. But face to face, if that officer is committed to that sector of town and they are working four nights a week at 4 to 12 shift, they come across the same
person maybe two or three times, it could lead to that. >> But is that something we'd be able to find out from our the ticketing companies? Like if somebody gets a ticket five times a year, 10 times a year, we could >> Yes, that's something that we could sort and filter through. >> I'd be curious of that and how many percentage of people.
>> It's not simple, but we can absolutely do that. I I would >> I think the other thing when we talk about tickets being deterrence so obviously we raised these tickets at the beach and if you go back a couple slides how many tickets are still being issued at beaches for parking >> down >> it was uh let me see if I remember
>> 41 it has gone down because >> 41 so it has gone down so at least 75 is was obviously more of a deterrent than 25 I guess we have to figure out what >> the like sort of where we want to get obviously I don't think zero rows
practicable. Um, but is 41 citations reasonable? Well, I guess Preston Beach, there's another, you know, 23. So, when you add it all together, you're talking about 64 tickets for the year at the beach. >> I mean, there has to be something at Eisman's. I have to think that lot at Phillips Park has to have
>> it does have recreation, >> right? >> But what's different is the Phillips Beach Park area has a white sign underneath it that says $75 fine. Um, you don't see that at Preston and you don't see that at at Eisman's >> in Fisherman is a $25 fine, >> correct? 25.
>> So, I think we have to also consider the equity of having a $25 fine for Fisherman's Beach versus $75 fine for >> Phillips or Preston or Eisman's or whatever. >> So, Chief, I just want to I I just want to be really clear here and I'd like to let you know some of the complaints that
I've had from people. Um, we had a resident on um Cedar, what is it? Cedar Cedar Hill Terrace >> Cedar Hill Terrace who it took him a year and a half to get any type of movement to have some parking some some
focus on the parking issue there. And it wasn't until he contacted the select board. It was a year and a half to collected the select board did we start to get something going. >> We have people businesses that are significant taxpayers on Humphrey Street that are constantly complaining. I get
constant calls of the lack of parking enforcement on Humphrey Street. And if you say, "Well, we wrote 58 citations on Humphrey Street over 6 months." That's 2.37 tickets a week.
>> So, this is enforcement measures only. So, it doesn't count the number of times that we've been out on Humphrey Street. And I think that came out to it was in the hundreds. So just because it's not like, oh, we're here, we're giving you a ticket, a parking ticket. It it that's
where I have to collect the enforcement measures versus our total calls for service for that particular street. That's why I said extracting this data is not very simple. But in looking at Humphrey, um there was over a 100
incidents. There may there may have been more but there was over a hundred incidents where we responded out there not necessarily given a citation and I have not heard I have not received any information from any of our officers about these even Cedar Hill Terrace. So,
I would just implore anyone I I understand the bureaucracy that a resident might feel because it's not just the police, it's DPW with the signage, it is select board approval. there's in terms of making sure that hey
uh if there's an issue that they're seeing that needs to be communicated and not just to any select board members uh but to us who are trying to keep this data and trying to know understand all the issues and so again just because
these are enforcement measures doesn't mean that's the total number of times that we're out there for half the year >> I so Hold on. Let me just finish here. I think that >> Sure. Go ahead. >> The re reality here is we have to deal
with a lot of complaints and at one point it was following we had a Saturday meeting and um I had a request from a resident to request that Engles Terrace become resident parking because it was just overfilled with so many cars up
there. So, and Katie had asked me because I brought it I brought it to the attention of the board to get it onto the agenda if I would just double check the signs, which I did. I went up and double checked the signs and the road was packed on both sides. You you you could barely even get up
there. The road's packed with cars and it says no parking everywhere, but the road's packed with cards, parking. And then as I'm leaving, a friend of mine called me and said, "Can I park in your driveway cuz there's no parking in fisherman's at fisherman's beach." I'm like, "That's ridiculous." And I drove
into fisherman's into fisherman's parking. And I counted 17 cars with no stickers. So in the middle of a Saturday afternoon, I I really have to question, are we really out ticketing? Um, or do
we just have a lot of crime on that Saturday afternoon that the police department had to be out dealing with crime? So, I think you need to I just want to make sure you understand we get a lot of calls, a lot of complaints. And if I say just call the police department, the answer is I'm not I'm not calling the
police department. >> So, >> yeah, I just want to reiterate Mary Allen's last point, which is the communication piece. Like generally when folks are reaching out to me, they've already reached out or tried to figure out an avenue to reach out. Whether it's this see it, click it, fix it. Like they
don't want to call 911, they want to call the non-emergency line or something like that. So if there is a better way for the community to be communicating these kinds of issues so that they get resolved faster, it would be great chief if we could, you know, communicate that
to the community because I think they're feeling a some areas are feeling a little exacerbated by um I mean exhausted, sorry, by the um by the inability action. Well, one of the things that I'm noticing, I mean, parking has been the thing that has kept
my hair up like on the back of my neck since I moved to town. It drives me nuts, especially when I had my my youngest, um, or my oldest when I had Jack. And I would love to go to Cafe Avalino on Humphrey Street, and I would drive down and the same car would be outside so many times for like five hours, and it would be the middle of the winter, and I'd be like, I can't do
this. I have to go find somewhere else. So, I'd have a a stroller and diaper bags and all the crazy kids stuff that you have. But the board now, I think, has spent more time talking about parking since Wayne and I have been on it than since I've moved to town. So, I think to me
that reflects a single focus that parking is a priority for us, not only for enforcement, but I hope for continued conversations about how we can look to improve parking, not only enforcement, management, access, and opportunities throughout town. So, I say
that because, you know, to Mary Ellen's point, I've gotten, you know, people I had a shop owner on Humphrey Street tell me she went out to sell somebody parking in a spot for more than two hours and they were just getting something from their car that, you know, it's two-hour parking and she got flipped off and they
went into their work, which was another business on Humphrey Street. I bring that up because people get frustrated and they just feel like >> it's not going to change. So, I appreciate you putting the the paperwork together and I think this is helpful. I think we're gonna it sounds like we're going to have a discussion about uh fine
schedules. um which I think is important, but I I also uh I know you guys are are hearing our focus on parking the last few meetings and I I hope we're going to continue the conversations on it because I we have a 2018 report from MAPC highlighting uh
abilities for us to manage parking, but also to look at new parking solutions on Humphrey Street that I continue to bring up because I think it's important for us to think about what we need to do to expand parking on Humphre in the Humphrey Street area and manage it better. and I'm going to grab the third rail and maybe that means having a
conversation about parking meters or parking apps or something of that nature so that we can assist parking management with some ancillary tools that will help get data and that will help with enforcement. So, I'm hoping that might be something we can consider over the next several months exploring at least
the idea of that. >> I second that. >> I want to add just add uh a couple things. Um, I mentioned before about markings, right, and defining physical location of the sidewalks. The other part about defining the different pieces
is whether or not we get more efficiency if we actually mark the spaces as opposed in certain high density areas so that you don't have cars kind of inefficiently parking where you could have gotten two or more cars in that particular spot. Is that something that
makes sense by a recommendation for your longer conversations? Uh, another question I have is, uh, drawing towards directly to the Swampscott Depot. Um, so you said you had 105 105 citations.
You said a lot of those are from mostly outside out oftowners coming in. >> Yes. For the most part. Okay. >> Yeah. I think that goes back to what why why not park at the depot and get a $25 ticket rather than parking in Boston and having to pay for parking for $75. >> I understand. Okay.
>> Or so. >> One of my other questions is is are they avoiding the MBTA parking area? So they aren't Okay. So there could be open spots in the MBTA parking zone where they would actually be able to pay, but instead they're parking on a resident parking area. That's that
>> pretty to say that's filled by eight. Yes. and and those are paid by app. So Kolus comes through in the morning and they scan the plates that are there and verify the >> right that was I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. >> Okay. So I think we have some clear
takeaways. Chief, we appreciate the all the data. Um I think we would like to understand the ticket situation and why we're not at $75 across the town >> at least. um at least. Yeah. Well, I I know that the select board passed a
motion. So whether the motion was faulty or whether we haven't gotten to the motion yet is the question at hand. I think I have Marilyn has. We can always come back next meeting and we'll have ticket uh we we would like to have um an understanding on standardizing ticketing
across and whether it should be increased um for a reduction in violations. Um, so I think that's the first one. And then the parking zones is something obviously that's going to need to be well prepared and uh researched. So I
think that's a little bit more um maybe a fall conversation, but we would I would like to see some work started on that so that we can actually have that conversation substantively in, you know, early fall. Um, and then at the same
time in that conversation, if we need to, we should address Wayne's commentary about if certain highdensity areas that don't currently have outlined spaces need to have outline or should have outlined spaces to help um with some of the parking. Um, did I miss anything?
>> No, but we probably should. I think Nick is already on it, but uh convening a working group of town hall staff that will focus on this >> um issue. >> Yeah. And we we used to have a we used to have a traffic committee. >> Yeah, I was about to ask that. Yeah,
>> I'm not suggesting we have it because uh while it had its um it certainly had its pluses, it it often held meetings in the middle of weekdays and so therefore it was not well attended. And you know, I think it was underengaged and um it sort
of missed some real >> like black holes of town that really needed help and um because people weren't mo most vocal. Um they sort of fell through the cracks. But I mean maybe we should think about what the best path forward is. At the very least,
we should have an asset at the police department who could be reached for safety matters like this. >> Yeah. And Katie, I will mention two quick things. One, I think the concept of parking meters is something we should continue to just
>> have as a concept to explore. Um, but also that parking committee, while inconvenient, when I first moved to town, I had a huge issue of people speeding on my street. So, I called my neighbor, who happened to be Mary Ellen, put me in touch with that parking committee and I think Officer Re um and they helped put that speedboard up which
figured out the speed limit >> average there on Puritan was like >> 34 miles an hour and a 20 or something crazy. Anyway, it helped fix the problem. >> Throw tennis balls at them. >> We still have that on Readington and Salem and many other streets too. >> But that committee was very helpful to me. So, I'll give them a plug. >> I just don't know necessarily that a
committee needs to be convened for it. I think there are probably capable town staff and safety staff that could probably >> facilitate some of that within the scope of their job title rather than trying to get citizens to all agree >> in neighborhoods they don't live in what the problems are and the solutions.
>> Agreed. >> Okay. So, um thank you chief very much. Um thank you um for coming and participating and we will move on to the next agenda item when I find my agenda which
is >> trash >> discussion and possible vote on recycling and solid waste service contract and fees. >> Thank you chief lieutenants new lieutenants. Congrats again. Thank you. >> Yes. Thank you very much. I love new these new lieutenants.
>> This be on the website. >> Yeah, it's live. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> It'll be recorded and posted. Yep. >> Yep. >> Find it on YouTube. >> You can stay if you want to. >> Yeah, I hear it.
>> So, just wanted to give a brief update uh before we move into your deliberation. Um, as you may have seen, we have a few variable message boards up in town now in addition to a postcard that should be landing um this week uh for folks to be
noticed that the uh deliveries will be starting next week. Uh just to run through what these slides are. It's an update on the delivery and start date. It's the request for additional carts, how we're doing that as a reminder, and then we'll move into your discussion um in greater detail that you will be
having. So updated um on both the delivery of the carts for recycling and service. Everything moved back one week. When we were last here, we were talking about the 20th and the 27th as delivery and starting dates. It's now the week of the 27th, which is next Monday. The
barrels will arrive in town. They'll begin being distributed on Tuesday. Um in addition, the automated pickup for both trash and recycling will begin the following Monday, and it'll be on your normal day uh outside your your property. Uh again, service we we
anticipate there will be some bumps in a learning curve, but service will be the same. They'll be at the end of your driveway picking up your trash uh and recycling. So, we are looking forward to that. Uh on the requesting additional carts, we have the form live uh listed
here at swanscotmma.gov/trash. You can also come into town hall, fill out a piece of paper. We did that at uh the senior center as well and Sabrina has some additional uh forms uh on site for folks that come that might have an interest. There's limited inventory as we've talked about a number of times.
The initial goal with this limit limited inventory is to make sure we can support primarily seniors and those with mobility challenges. Once we get a real sense of what the universe looks like, uh we have the ability to order more carts, but we did not want to have an inventory of carts that would never be deployed. We wanted to keep this
manageable to begin with and then take the temperature and get a a better sense for what that demand was like before we we order anymore. Um the final bullet is just to sort of tee up your discussion and I'm going to turn it over to Wayne after this. We have a couple of slides
that he had put together. Um this is just to sort of highlight the discussion uh two weeks ago. the range that you all were in for that extra barrel um was I think at the very end Marielle and you had boiled it down to it's between 150 and 200 when we come back so that we
could sort of narrow the conversation and then the recycling was approximately 100 it was a little over with the math but in terms of the discussion about what was appropriate I think you guys were coming together around $100 somewhere so so last time last two weeks ago when we
talked um so I I should really apologize. I wish I wish I had done this for that for that conversation. >> Do you mind me doing this? >> All right. >> Thanks, Chief. >> That would have been awesome. >> I thought he was leaving it with me.
>> Um I wish I'd had something to present to the rest of the board so that we weren't just talking orally and trying to throw numbers out. it it it was unfair to the rest of the board to be able to have a to to to force that conversation in in the way we did. So I
felt it important to kind of um you know just in full transparency both of course to my colleagues on the board but also to the general public to kind of understand where these numbers are coming from so that at least we can um have fair deliberation as to wherever we
we come out. So on the first um slide here um you know I had created a trash cart fee calculator and I threw in kind of two different scenarios and also compared it to when we started the program in FY21.
>> So what we're looking at is um just the service costs and the hauling fees you can see have gone up tremendously from 451,000 to 609. Um we have the same amount of uh mun municipal resident pickups. Um the tonnage however um is
significantly different. Um we have gone down. That is in direct reflection of the changes that we made back in 2020. And you can see the average pounds per household per week also compared in 2021
or FY21 to FY uh uh 27. So if if we look at what the per resident trash service costs including, you know, for transportation, including fuel is currently in this contract, $122 per per
resident. Back years ago, it was $88, right? Big increase. Um, and then we then we take a consideration of, you know, let's say we have a heavy load versus a light load. So now these numbers are taken as arranged. There's no perfect answer for it, but this is
for orders of magnitude so that you understand kind of where we're coming from. So that 200 and 250 number, that's pounds per cubic yard, but what that translates into for a 35gallon cart is either 40 lbs or 50 lbs, right? 40 lb is
pretty reasonable number when you're just kind of lightly loading but not pushing down and compacting. One of the concerns um that I have uh is that folks that are using the folks that will be using the extra cart are generally using
more than one bag. Uh and we'll if it was me, right, I would be pushing everything I possibly can into that, which means you're going to be slightly more compacted, meaning you're going to be hitting towards the 50 lb zone. So, if we look at the tipping fees per ton, you see how much those go up. Um,
and if you look at the max weight per household, you come up with the numbers of 132, 165, and of course, it was originally 121. So, if we just look at just tipping weight alone, you're
looking on the light side of $145 and on the heavy side, $178. Now, what does that actually cost per ton? The service cost, not per resident, but per ton. Just to give you an indication of how much that changed from 2021,
the service cost per ton was $128 and now $23. And that that's reflective. Also, you can see that at the per resident trash service cost up like the fifth line down up at the top. So, you can see how much those have changed. I'm not necessarily advocating that we
address the service costs and charge towards that. But what I will say is that we've had six years of history where we have done it. And this is what I want to show you on the next slide. The next slide talks about the blue overage bags. >> Wait, before you go to the next slide, >> yes, please just be clear
>> that the service cost for hauling because you're calling it service. Can So the hauling cost >> is 203. Yes. >> And >> that's 69,000 divided by the amount of tons. >> And the tipping cost
for a ton is what? 129 would you say? >> 126. >> 126 >> this year. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Just want to make sure everybody remembers there's two fees attached to trash hauling and tipping. >> But this is again this is not actual. This is assumption, right? Because
you're assuming how much each barrel is going to weigh. You're assuming it's going to be 40 or 50 pounds, right? I think that's a reasonable assumption to make. 8% eight >> in the sur in this let me just just give you some of this the facts of the some of the information. So we found in 2023
the respondents to the survey which was well we had a good size of the population. >> Okay let's stop right there. How many people responded to your survey? >> N over 950 people >> with 15,000 people in the >> no residents. >> Okay. 5100 residents. So
>> out of 51 Yeah. That's that's just under 20%. That's that's a pretty statistically good number >> and we found and we found that 8% >> 20% >> it's a statistically high number from a survey's perspective >> according to you right >> according to most survey people you know
the the the range of error is pretty small we're talking about we're talking about just general perspective >> right >> of magnitude so 8% used bags every week one or more bags every week >> according to the people that responded to you >> correct >> right >> okay Yeah.
>> But you don't know how much those bags weighed. You're assuming they're going to weigh 40 or 50 pounds. >> I'm assuming that >> So, he's assuming 40 or 50 tons of waste in blue bags, right? Wait. >> No. No. 40 to Let's Let's go back for a
second. Wait, repeat your question, Katie. Sorry. So, I can answer correctly. >> The 40 or 50 that Danielle is referring to. Can you confirm what you were saying with that >> projected capacity? >> That would be the projected capacity of a 35gallon barrel. based upon known
densities of trash at the high limit is 250. It just depends how much you compact it down. >> Yeah, I think that's where my issue is. It's uh while I don't disagree with Danielle, like there are some other We're doing the best we can with the data we have. Great. Yeah.
>> But I think the supposition that a typical person is going to pack in as much trash as possible, I don't think is actually logical. I think when I think about my shoe which is full of families, a lot of families with kids, a lot of kids who are in diapers, they are taking
their diaper bag and putting in one barrel and then that is the one bag like they need overflow from time to time, right? When they change out the diaper genie and they got to take that bag out. So that's their overflow bag. It's consistent pretty much for 5 years until the kids get or four years until their
kids get out of diapers. Mhm. >> So I don't think we are just like finding random trash and shoving it in and making you know a certain making it all fit because we have an extra barrel. I think that barrel is utilized for you
know maybe every week when you are changing the diaper bag or that extra one bag of trash. You know, I don't I agree that your survey produced results that said 8% of people at Swampscott are using one bag every week, but I don't think the nuance of bringing on a new
barrel is going to mean predictably those 8% are going to be filling it to the max. So, while I agree there's like a margin of error to account for, I don't think we should jump all the way to the ceiling. I don't think we should be at the floor because it's not cost uh
intelligent, but I also don't think we should be jumping to the ceiling because that makes it a punishment to get an extra barrel because if you're not the person who's filling it to the brim, then you're paying for a luxury you don't you're not actually getting or
utilizing. >> That what what Okay, help me understand. If we propose a second cart annual fee of $145, I'm just going to round all of these up to the nearest dollar.
What is the worst case scenario if everybody who gets a second cart uses it at the full capacity or at median capacity or higher? Like what is the what's the cost? >> What's the worst thing that's going to happen to the town if that happens?
>> Like help me walk through what what's our con? What's the What's the >> Well, you're going to have a higher tipping. You'll have higher tipping. >> Um, >> so we'll assume unaccounted for costs. >> Correct. >> Well, there's also the issue that anyone using needing a second barrel.
>> Okay. Let me back up for a second. The average user uses, let's say, a half. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> An extra user will not only use the full amount of of the first one, but likelihood most of the second one. Okay. So the impact is more than just assuming
that you're compacting the second barrel. So if you're using two bags, you're definitely compacting. If you're using one bag, to Katie's scenario, she's she's totally right. This is not 100% science. But what we need to do is is >> you're charging for capacity. If you only need >> But aren't you just replacing the blue
bags with this fee? I mean, somebody's going out and buying blue bags right now. You're already make drawing revenue for the blue bags. This is happening in 8% of households. people are buying blue bags. We're already >> doing that. So, you're just simply taking that blue bag cost,
>> adding it on top of the barrel rental >> and then paying it in a different form. >> Hold on, Katie. Actually, what happens is that the blue bags have a much less weight capacity and for two reasons. One, it's plastic bag, but two, um, is
30 gallons, not 35 gallons. And the other thing is you you can compact a lot more into a a a large bin than you would into a bag that's going to explode, right? And I >> and you're assuming that your thought process is how every consumer is
consuming, but I'm saying I don't agree. I don't align. People are either going to buy the blue bags or they're going to buy the barrel. They're going to utilize the same amount of trash. I really don't think that we're going to get an influx of people being like trash happy because they have a barrel to to >> Let let me go to the next Let me go to
the next slide >> if I can. Nick, >> did you have a >> Just before you go to the next slide, I I do I I do think >> I want to address Katie's question. >> Hold on. But I do think that >> there is a very serious possibility people will get a little trash happy or a little bit more relaxed in what they
do. I'm going to tell you I'm 100% >> because I was going to say I think Ted is sitting at the edge of his seat getting ready to get another barrel. >> I still have diapers. I still have to survive. >> That's why trash barrels. >> That's why I I just feel that if we
could if we have a bag if we if we say bags are going to be what bags are 350. I don't know. >> Let's go. Let's go to the next slide please. >> I don't know who's controlling. >> Can I can I just add the one thing that answer? >> No. >> Yes. I'm only kidding.
>> We are only doing this to replace the blue bags, >> right? >> We would not be doing this if they were like, "Yep, we can pick it up with the arm >> people." So, I just want to address that directly. The only reason that we're having this discussion >> with the trash policy that we put in place, if we allow people to get another
cart, the reason we're allowing people for another cart is because automate the automation is a cost savings. >> Right. Right. So, and that's why I'm saying >> if you just take the one blue bag and say instead of getting a blue bag, just
get an extra bin. >> Yeah, >> that comes out to $180 a year. >> No, it doesn't. >> At 350, it does. Yeah, >> we're getting ahead. We're getting ahead of the presentation. >> All right, here we go. I'll >> Okay, just just let let me give me another few minutes to roll with this.
Okay, so the bags and the cost of the bags in FY21, $3, right? We took home the offset after you took away the cost of the actual bags and the tipping, we were charging the resident an extra dollar that we applied toward service
costs into the um um the fund, the enterprise fund. >> So $1 for every blue bag went into the >> hauling went into hauling >> went into the enterprise fund. Yeah. To offset hauling >> the hauling cost. Okay. >> And and and I raised this point only >> the enterprise fund is the total cost.
It is not hauling only. >> It is a total cost of the contract that we subsidize annually. It is it went into the enterprise fund but because the tipping this is backing out the tipping charge. So what we're saying is we had in excess of of a$18 per bag back in 2021 that slowly degraded as tipping
fees raised and the cost of the bags raised a couple of cents. So today if we were using the same heavier load as let's say you you're at 35 lbs at 80% capacity. Okay. and or even even at a light capacity, right? Your your excess
reduced. So, we're losing we're we've degraded the the revenue piece of the bags as the years have gone forward. There are 40 to 45,000 bags per year. So, what we saw in 2020 in FY21 is we
had 43,000 that was supplementing the service costs. We're down now to somewhere between 34 and 16,000. So just to recognize that there's a revenue aspect of what we would be losing if we lose 20,000 bags because people are getting carts.
>> So you're saying with this that we were actually making money off the cost of the blue bags. Is that what you're saying? >> It was being applied Yeah. It was being applied to the fund. It wasn't going to general government. It was going directly back to offset the rest of the cost. >> It's still I mean my intent is not to make any money off of the trash s that
it just isn't. I I I don't I didn't even realize we were actually creating a cushion from blue backs. I I thought it was >> I don't I don't use that word a cushion at all. >> I think the question is is it your intent to have other people subsidize
>> your additional trash? >> At what point? I don't >> No, Mary Ellen, that's why I would be buying the barrel to subsidize my own trash. I don't see how that makes you subsidize it >> if >> when I'm paying for it. I >> Hold on. Isn't there a pro and I'm looking to the two technical people Nick
and well I guess m anybody who understands this the difference there the $18 that means that two uh I'm sorry $1.92 paid for the co the the weight of the actual trash in the bag is that right and that's the diff and the cost of the actual production of the plastic
>> and there's a $18 left over after that right >> right >> profit or >> now does that dollar do we have an incremental increase in our fees for somebody picking up the second bag that they w we would not have assumed that fee if the bag was not sold.
>> So back in 2021 we had smaller I believe we had smaller um um uh trucks and I believe at the time I wasn't a part of the select board who made the fees at the time but I believe the understanding was that you would make that up as there
it was a it was built into the cost >> okay >> of the total operation. All I know is the lens that I'm looking at this through, I don't want to make money and I don't want to lose money on these. I just want >> Right. I think that's you want to find that sweet spot >> where you are managing the trash
>> via the contract. You don't want to lose money, right? I agree with you. There's definitely a floor here. And if 148 or 150 is the floor, great. the ceiling of 200 if that's putting extra money to
offset the tipping it like I don't want to do that either. I want to just >> No, that's fine. >> But is there a marginal increase in the tipping cost or is that locked in for the duration of the contract? >> Like does >> 5% per year? >> Five. >> Yeah. >> But it's locked in. We know the cost in the next three fiscal years.
>> Yeah. Perfect. >> Yeah. So So this rate would effectively go up 5% per year. And then how how does the gas fee go into that too? >> It's included here based upon estimates that we have. >> It's just it's just fluctuation in the hauling, right?
>> Yeah. It's basically there's either an expense or rebate based on how far it is from the pegged. I think that's the simplest way to describe it, right Wayne? >> It is. But it if you look at where I talk about overage users contribution to the waste system five between 553 and
almost 700 tons by the overage users if you look at 40,000 bags based upon the weight in those potential bags it's not an exact science not an exact >> stuffing it full no that's at 80% full okay that is just an order of magnitude
so you can understand how much extra waste goes into the system by the users of the second bags. >> It's just >> is there an ability? >> This is so full of assumption. This is this is >> Yeah. So, >> I I want to ask this question, Nick. Is there an ability after 6 months to
reevaluate and to increase the fee if if we determine we're not drawing enough to cover the amount of tonnage that occurred in the last 6 months? >> I mean, >> if we were undercharging, >> we we could. It's not a practice that we should be engaging in because it doesn't
But considering this is our first time doing this, it like >> an annual fee that we're >> I don't want to overcharge >> you could I would love to know what Nick's recommendation is. >> I would love to know what you think we
should be doing here. >> Hot seat. >> Yeah, I want to know. >> I I think I've alluded to this, but it's the lower end of the range that that you all have talked about. Do you think that effectively >> it's at 40 pounds per week,
which is the number that is on one of these slides, it's just over a ton. >> A ton is $12645 to tip. >> So your recommendation is just pay the you're just paying that. Your recommendation is for the people that are using more just pay tipping.
>> My recommendation is that they pay for the tipping that is being >> the capacity >> added to the system. Yeah. I mean the cost Holland's already included in the tax in our taxes. >> No. So like this gets to the idea that Wayne identified which is the philosophical
way of how you want to look at this. For me the service is already paid for this. It's paid for 609 is should be divided by 5100 not by the tonnage to get the cost of >> Yeah. which we showed >> as an example. So that's
>> at 12645 a ton plus a barrel a portion of the barrel because someone may leave and I don't think that a person should be responsible for the barrel in year one if they don't live here for the whole like they're paying for a portion of it while they have it. >> Um >> that gets you to 138
140 you know like >> so and I think there there certainly is a value to understanding that whether it's fuel that it's going to fluctuate. Right now it's above the pay rate but in the projections we put together for town meeting we assumed that it would stay above because of what's going on in the Middle East >> right and we use those projections for
this >> right so I my recommendation would be at the lower end at that 1501 150 you know five some I I just >> it is a to a ton of waste plus >> that 5100 that service fee the cost that
we're paying for somebody to go to everybody's houses that's divided by 5100 houses, >> right? >> Regardless of two barrels or one barrel, there's no change. >> Yes, they're still going. That's correct. There's no change. >> That's the $122. >> That's to get to your driveway or sidewalk or front of your house. >> No matter what, if I got nine trash bags
or one, >> right? >> Correct. >> Y. >> Okay. >> No, no, no, no, no, no. Now, so here's because if you have an out trash bags, if you're saying, >> let me rephrase that. If I have two trash barrels or one trash barrel. So now, but we're say So now, if you want
to have a policy and say, "Okay, you just have to pay the tipping fee," then that means these the price on these bags has to come down. >> You're not going to have the bag. Are we still going to have the bags? >> Of course. >> Yeah, you still have to have the bags. >> You know, there are people available for episodic use. The idea is that a barrel
is for >> habitual once a month, maybe, right? Yep. Right. >> The the problem that I have with Nick's position, I respect it. I mean, not that you're a taxpayer here, but I still respect it. Is the fact that if you're
the if you're using more of the service and you're putting out more trash, I think that you should be paying you should be taking part of the burden of what it costs to haul that. If you're a heavier user, then that should be rolled into your user fee. Now, the problem
if you let me finish what I'm saying. No, trash and school. I don't put them in the same category, Katie. But I think when you're using a service, you should pay your portion of the service, it should be divided out. That's that's what I'm saying. I think
the issue here is we have a question of what is a fair what is the fair number to have it divided out. But I point >> I if I could just I agree the average user right now is twothirds of a ton.
So if we're saying someone that needs that is already a heavy user, we're asking them to pay more. That's what we're doing, right? We're we're asking them to pay, >> right? >> 55 >> and we're assuming that they're going to put 40 pounds a week, which is bags
close to failure, >> right? >> Stuffed into the trash barrel, >> right? I mean, we're not asking for a second barrel for free. We're asking to pay $150 roughly for a second barrel. So, I don't know how that would be interpreted as not paying extra for any
extra usage. I'm simply saying, let's not gouge people and punitively punish them because they're asking for a second barrel. So, we're going to charge them for it and then hit them with an extra fee because we assume they're going to stuff 50 pounds into that barrel. the service fee. If we assume that if that's
a sunk cost, it's a fixed cost regardless of how many barrels we're doing, >> what is the financial reason to charge for their contributions to that even though it's fixed or sunk?
>> Well, because you're going to offset the hauling overall. And there's two things here. is if you're already on a blue bag, if you're already historically charging and you're saying that even the price on the blue bag isn't isn't enough
to cover percentage of the hauling, how do you turn around and say, "Okay, here's a here's a bin for 150, but you keep paying more. The person who's buying the bag is having to pay more." So, >> oh, >> but you're already making a dollar on
the bag off of the person that's buying it. So, how can you logistically make them pay even more? I I don't >> I'm saying lower the ad cost. >> I'm saying you got to lower it. Well, you said you got to raise it. He was raising the cost. >> I said what if you can hit the next
slide to click one more. Okay. So, sorry. >> So, we we last week we had proposed 350. I had proposed 350. And the reason for that is that if you're you're staying consistent relative to FY21. Now, if you want to change that policy, I I I that's
fine. What's the what's the Can you explain the philosophy of being consistent to 21? I like expand on that a little bit. >> So, right in FY21, you can see the results of the numbers. What I was, you know, if we were contributing roughly a
dollar to back into the system. Okay. >> Oh, you meant the off per bag offset for town. Correct. Cost. Correct. You wanted to increase that to get as much out of the blue bag user that we did in 21. And and also to also you you don't want to
be you don't want to be ch this is another piece of this. You don't want to be changing the bags every year because there are serious management issues with trying to do that because they get sold through retailers. It's it's a real pain pain in the butt. >> So just like we had them at $3 that
lasted for six years. You know our cost overall went up significantly. That's why, you know, I think it's not unreasonable to go up to 350 to cover ourselves moving for the next five years in this contract. >> I mean, I will say this. I think if
you're talking about the blue bag being a hindrance to the service, right? The service is meant to be automated. So, a person getting out of the car and throwing the bag over every once in a while is fine, but a constant bag user is a problem, right? And just as the
parking fee, you want to make that fee higher so people don't buy the blue bags and people just buy the extra barrel. >> But Marielle, you were just saying to lower the cost of the blue bag, were you not? >> What I'm saying? Well, if if you're saying just charge people tipping, >> right? If you're just saying just charge
people tipping fee, >> then you have to say what is the average weight of a of a bag? >> Being consistent >> and and that's the tipping fee. So maybe drop you're gonna have to drop that too. And I think if we do that, we're we're going to take a hit on our overall dollar amount.
>> But shouldn't we logistically drop the fee anyway? Because we're making money off of people buying blue bags and we that's not the goal. The goal is to break even or as close to break even as possible. So if we're making a$18 on every $3 blue bag, >> we're making like 42 cents now at this
point. >> So what does this say then? This says a$18. >> That was >> that was FY21. When we first started the program, we were making a$18 >> off every blue bag we sold over the course of six years >> at the heaviest amount, right? We actually Yeah. If it was a little bit less than
>> saying, I'm not in it to make any money off of anybody, right? Or make people pay any more than they have to pay, right? This is a convenience we're rolling out to people that were marginalized because we gave them a dinky barrel that couldn't fit anything five years ago, right?
>> The goal here was to make them pay for a second barrel. Absolutely. Because they should if they're using more trash, but not to make them pay so much that it's punitive because they might use an extra bag a week or whatever. >> Yeah. I I I don't think I don't think a
dollar was punitive necessarily. I think it contributed back into the into the full system of of the high cost of trash. Now, if you want if you wanted >> if you want to >> look at the next five years though, we'll be getting underwater at that point. How how do you know that,
Wayne? >> Cuz you're going to go up 5% every year. You're going to be up 25%. >> But you're also assuming people are going to put 40 pounds in a barrel, >> right? You don't know that either. We're making massive assumptions here. >> You make there's a known assumption that
the first barrel where most people would have maybe 20 pounds or 22 lbs. The first barrel is going to be full. People are pack it in. People that use blue bags are packing in their >> Wait, I use blue bags and I don't pack it in. Okay, I'm gonna tell you right now. So, you can't say that every single
person using a blue bag is absolutely gonna pack 40 or 50 pounds in a sec. I can't be convinced. I've seen it on my street. Like, you know, you might have one bag. I I just I I can't justify charging people that much extra because you think
they're going to cram as much as humanly possible in a barrel. >> Could I make a suggestion? But I will do that after you bring your point, Katie, because I know you've been >> I was just gonna say I'm gonna make this a little bit more complicated. So maybe your suggestion is better than >> only because Okay, because I'll just say
she's on I would rather I would rather charge more for the trash barrel and make the second recycling barrel free. >> What? >> Wait, can you say it one more time? I wasn't expecting to hear that. Say it one more time. >> So right now you're proposing that a second recycle barrel is $100, right?
Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I would rather go to the ceiling on trash 180 if you want to as long as every person in town gets a second recycle barrel free of charge. >> It's going to be a lot higher cost. So
the cost the cost of Yeah, there's >> I don't really >> because I think that if you're going to charge for a second recycle barrel, you are going to have people who reach a limit in their recycling even though your recycling is huge and we're going to get brand new barrels and they're
going to be huge. And I I think Katie Holt stood up at town meeting and said if you charge for a second barrel, people will reach a plateau of recycling. Yes. >> Right. You'll get you'll fill your barrel and that will be it. Right now, some weeks I have three barrels full of recycling. Some weeks I just have one.
>> So, it depends. I'd rather have two barrels of recycling and be enticed to take all of that out of the trash because it's free of charge for all residents to over recycle then and and have a way to mitigate that
through trash costs then penalize people for getting an extra recycling barrel. And I think there are towns that do this. >> No idea. >> So the average user, right? So if if the
full recycling barrel, which you in other words, you wouldn't be getting a second recycling barrel unless the first one was full. A full recycling barrel would be almost 70 pounds. And that is based upon pretty pretty good data that we have about um the density of
recycling at residential density. And you see I make an assumption, but these are the facts. I have two recycle barrels, Wayne, that are huge. And if it weighed 70 lbs, I couldn't drag it out to my curb. So, no, I don't think your assumption is accurate. I'm going to say that right now. >> These are 50% higher than the cost the
sizes that you have. >> And I still wouldn't be able to pull the thing out if it weighed 70 lbs. I don't think anybody would. >> So, I mean, >> hold on. If we had to What would we have to charge for the trash barrel to give everybody a free recycling barrel? >> I don't care. >> Yeah. I don't know.
>> Like we have we have I appreciate the perspective especially I recall when Katie stood up a town meeting and um I appreciate the point she made. I just we we've told people we have to make a decision tonight and I'm nervous that we're still I don't know if we're any
closer to a decision now than we were two weeks ago, but we've told the public we're going to have a decision and and we've talked about this for 45 minutes. So, >> I would I would recommend we take the town administrator's recommendation and charge $150 for a second barrel. That would be my recommendation. >> My recommendation is we take Wayne's
recommendation of increasing and putting hauling fee in there because if you're putting out more trash, you should be assuming more of the responsibility for hauling. >> And I am. That's why I'm paying $150 for a second barrel. That's enough
responsibility for me. I don't think I should be penalized because I use more trash than you. I'm already paying extra. I'm paying for the second barrel. >> That's my personal thought. I think we should take a vote. Let's just call it. >> Well, let's let's let's be clear on which our motion is. So, I think if we're going to if we're going to vote
here and we make a motion, one is on the barrel. There's three things at bay here, right? One is on the trash barrel, the other is on the bags, and the other is on the recycling barrel. >> So, I think we should take it one at his head. The bag. Let's start with the bag. Okay. >> So, we're either motioning to increase the back fee or motion to keep it the
same. So, can somebody provide a motion? >> Motion to keep it the same. >> Second. >> Is second. Ted. Okay. So, we'll roll call. Ted >> I. >> Wayne. >> Uh, nay. >> Marielle. >> No.
>> Danielle. >> I. >> And I am an I. >> Okay. >> So, now we move on. Wait. What else was on your list other than the barrel? Before someone makes a motion though, I just have one question and I will wait until someone's ready to make a motion. Ask my question >> unless they want me to ask it now. >> Ask it now.
>> Okay. So again, just to clarify that the service charge is fixed. There's no impact on how many barrels we have and how much waste we put into it. >> That's right. Okay. >> Sunk cost. >> It's a sunk cost. So, the only reason we would make people pay for more than the
weight of their trash is because they're a heavier user and we want them to help subsidize the overall 5100 because they're using it more using more weight. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. So, so I'm I'm going to make the statement that >> was that accurate though. >> It is accurate and I agree with you. Okay.
>> Okay. trying to get I I can go and at least for the next year I can definitely go down the road of saying if we are truly fixing the cost at the per resident level it's flat then I would be fine in favor of that.
However, I'm convinced that the weight >> in favor of what specifically wave >> of of just charging for the tipping okay of of of the weight cost. But I go back to the strong feeling that it's going to be more for those users that are using
it, they're going to be consuming more weight than they would than the average user. So I I would I would be leaning maybe you don't have to go to the full 180, but more than 150. >> So what is the dollar amount lean? So if
you know >> what's the middle point between 150 and 180 >> 165 >> 165 that math >> yeah 165 >> why don't we reach a happy medium at 165 I'd like to make a motion for 165
>> second it >> any more discussion >> and again >> I I I go back to we can raise it in a year if it's not enough but we should start small and raise it incrementally if we find that it's not enough. I think
to overburden people and punitively punish them for getting a second barrel to subsidize everybody else is not the right way to go. I know I can I make a friendly amendment to like 155 if 150 is not enough. I just think 165 even though
it's in the middle it's I think the supposition that everybody's filling everything to the max is not accurate. And I'll, you know, be responsible if I'm wrong, but I just I agree with Danielle. Let I would ask to go to 155, but the motion
on the table increase, but we cannot decrease. Nobody ever decrease. >> Just from a monetary perspective, and I know we're all probably really excited to get this conversation over with, >> what happens if we come on the underwater side of this? Where does the money come from? >> Right now, the entire trash
uh contract is subsidized out of the levy. total comp short of the 100 it comes directly out of the taxpayers's pocket. >> Okay. the the 104 if I'm looking at that right for the FY27 light that are the town received. That's what would go into the um
>> enterprise account and that would lower >> the ultimate number that is paid out of the but what went before town meeting was the full cost of the contract with our projections for um the fuel charges just because as we were signing it it was very clear that something
>> so it already calculates in assumptions at the worst case scenario that this is not going to >> yeah we will be reducing our bag We'll be supplementing what we were making in revenue for bags through the carts. Okay. >> Okay. Just from the revenue side, not
profit or loss, but just in the revenue side. >> Y understood. >> Okay. So, we'll be definitely as people move towards that. The regular users, if there are 400 users, you're going to be losing another 20,000 bags of sales. >> Okay.
>> Is supplements one one versus the other. >> So, look, >> there's a motion on the floor. I'm just going to say this. This is there's there's really no hill to die on one way or the other. We're talking about we're talking this is just this is just a transparent discussion for for us
for the public. You know, if you're talking about on a $2 million contract a couple of $10,000 one way or the other, you know, I think we're in the ballpark. So >> yeah, I don't disagree with you, Wayne,
but when we talk about it with water and sewer rates rising, with taxes rising, with everything else, like every dollar counts. >> It does. >> I I do think like at 165, that's the motion on the table. But like if we could just go down even to 160, that
like I can't justify going that high over it. Could we consider 160? >> But I I think we're missing the point. We're we're in the neighborhood. But it's the right thing to do to not overcharge people when we cannot prove that theory. We cannot concurrently give
them the numbers that prove $165 or $180. We can barely do it for 150. We don't want to listen to the town administrator who just gave us the rationale because we we want to basically punish our neighbors who who are requesting a second barrel. That's what we're talking about here.
>> I don't think there's any punishment. It's just a it's just a disagreement on what is the what is the density and what is the weight and what is >> that's your that's your discussion >> I can sustain that >> that's your discussion >> no it is a discussion and it's my discussion based upon some of the factors that I have looked at for a long
long time >> when Mary Allen is telling me that I'm going to be you know I should pay more because I'm asking for a second barrel right that's that's a different discussion >> that's a different it's a parallel there different tracks I'm agreeing listen I'm I'm agreeing with the fact of just charging for the tonnage The
disagreement we have is what the total contribution of that tonnage is by the extra users. If you want to go light, you go light. Look, it's not a hill I want to die on for for five bucks. >> Mhm. >> It's not. It's not. It's the fact that we do have >> it's five bucks if not my money, Wayne.
So, yeah. Per year. Per year. >> Doesn't matter, Wayne. I I'm asking 5,100 users to pay X, but I can't back up that assumption. Yeah. I I take it seriously. I don't want it to be more than it should be. when I ask them to pay extra in water and sewer and everything else that goes up in this
town. Yeah. I I want to give people a break if I can. >> That's my goal. >> Okay. >> I'm not here to make money off blue bags. I'm not. >> So there's no reason to consider an amend. >> There's a motion. There's a second. We can move to vote. If there's no amendment, >> we can if you'd like to consider
>> I I would move to amend to move it to 160. >> Can I get a second? I'll second that. >> Wait, what was it originally? 165 >> was 165. >> 165 150 16. Fine. Sure. Great.
>> Okay. So, the motion on the table is to have the barrel fee be for the additional barrel be 160 and the roll call. Wayne >> I >> Ted >> I. >> Danielle >> I. >> Marian >> I.
>> And I'm at Great 160 then. Okay. >> I can't say we didn't think it through. >> Hold on a minute. Hold on a vote in the amendment. >> That was a vote. Sorry. That was a vote in the amendment. Yeah. Okay. So So the motion >> call vote for the barrel being 160.
Sorry. Thank you. Wayne >> I >> I >> Ted >> I >> I >> Katie is an I. >> Okay. >> I can't wait to have this conversation next. >> Should we do a third time? No, I'm just kidding. >> Um All right. So
>> recycling barrel. recycling barrels. >> I just lost my >> I'll be right back. >> So, is there a slide on how we came to 100? >> Yeah, I just got kicked out of the meeting, so I'm trying to get back. >> Okay, great. >> I'm jealous.
>> Do you want mine? >> So, now >> I'm sure there's a lot of data. Is the recycling and I know you walked us through this two weeks ago. similar mentality, but similar mentality is that we pay the the service fee, we play the price per pound based on the various
goods in it, but we also get a refund up based on the goods and the amount they're worth. >> Correct. And and so the assumption of the return >> Mhm. >> is conservative. >> Okay. >> At around $25, that can float. That is a difficult number to peg. um you know and
if we're looking from year to year I'm certainly open to changing that number next year as well whether or not it needs to be lowered or raised >> okay >> based upon what the average uh what they call the ACR which is the uh the rebate. So this is for every other week and
remember that this is this is the weight of a 96 gallon barrel um and the ratio of a full user versus an average user is 6.4 four times >> on any given any given time.
>> Wayne, I'm looking at your calculator and it says 52 weeks. Shouldn't it be 26? >> Should be 20. Yes. Oh, crud. I'm sorry. >> This really should be $45 cheaper. >> That's bad copy and paste. No, the the internal the the spreadsheet is actually based upon 26
that the 52 weeks was a typo. Thank you for catching that. I'm sorry. >> Wait, so the dollar amount is correct, but the weeks are off. The dot internally in the spreadsheet is actually times 26. >> I know. But what I'm saying is that 90.57.
Is that time 56 or is that time I'm sorry 26 or 52? Because >> it's it's $348 time 26. >> $348 time 26. So that is not >> that math's not right.
>> What is the 908? >> It's 9048. Yeah. I mean there's some fractions in there. I mean there's some it goes out decimal places. Yeah. >> 94. >> Yeah, it's 948 >> off by 9 cents, but >> Okay. >> Wait, just walk. What is the 9057? Is
that >> That's the cost based upon the >> based upon the full container. If you have to have a second container, that means you are using six times more than the average person in town.
How do we figure out that people are using 70 pounds of recycling? >> We don't. >> I mean, I I trust the protection. It's going to be full. >> You know what? I'm buying my second barrel for cardboard cuz it's big and I can't fit it anywhere. And if and even though I, you know, put it up,
>> it's bulky. So, >> if I buy a second recycling cart, probably one will be just cardboard. And I'm not filling it 70 lbs or however 96 pounds of cardboard because of just the way it is. So again, I mean, I hate to get back into this philosophical
conversation about it, but it's the same debate, just insert recycling instead of trash. So >> didn't we talk last >> 102 is the ceiling, correct? >> Like the heaviest user >> that is the that that's the assumption
of Yeah. 60 almost 70 pounds. >> 80% of a cart on the other side. That's just the math of density of loose recycling per cubic yard is um is 126 pounds per cubic yard. That's what it comes out to be. >> So, it's a 69 lb recycling cart.
>> Mhm. >> And has anyone actually thought of the logistical lo just the logic of a 69B recycling cart? Who in their right mind is going to pull out a 69 pound? >> Most people won't be most people won't be using
>> right. If they do need a second cart, we're going to charge them for a 69 lb fully recycled cart at $102. That's this logic. >> Yeah. Because the average you the average user is using 10 lbs of 11 pounds a week,
>> 20 pounds over two weeks, >> but not 69 pounds. >> Yeah. How do we get from that to to that? >> Because because you know that they're not using the full capacity. If you're using the full capacity, for those folks that need the full capacity, they're going to rightfully, as we talked about
before, fairly pay for the for the assumption of the weight. >> Okay. But we don't >> But you said the the projected capacity for over car is 70 pounds here, but you just said the average person is looking at like 20 pounds in their cart. >> Correct. Because they're not going to be filling it up every every week or every
other week. I mean, look, look, it's it's 14 Just do the math. It's 1440 uh tons divided by 5100 residents divided by 52 weeks. It's 10.9 >> by 26 weeks
>> um per week. No, if the average pound of household is per week, that would be 52. >> Yes, that is 52. Sorry, >> I said this last week, I'll say it again. My thought is we are disincentivizing people to recycle by charging them $102 for a second recycle
bin, which ultimately people recycling more helps this town. So, we're going to penalize them by recycling more. It doesn't make any sense to me. >> Recycling isn't free. >> Granted, but it costs way more if those people don't recycle and stick it in
your trash. Correct. >> Yeah. instead. >> And why would they want to be paying an extra $150 or now $160 for trash and when they can get an extra $100? >> Maybe they're not. >> What will happen is they'll one trash bag and some extra recycling and they'll
get an extra trash barrel instead of an extra recycle barrel. That's what will happen cuz they can't put the trash, but they can put the recycling in the trash. or they'll go to their next door neighbor on the one event that they have uh that they have an extra little bit of cardboard and use their neighbors, you
know, wide open because the average is going to be using about a third of it, right, every two weeks and take advantage of of your neighbor's extra capacity. >> I the takeway that I have >> possibly I don't personally ever do that, but I I mean no, I don't stick
things in my neighbor's recycling bin because I have extra. No. Um I don't know that maybe some people do. I don't my experience. >> It's it's an option. >> Sure. >> So what would be So 102 $103. >> Well, hold on a second. Hold on. I just want to Sorry. I want to just also say
that we are collecting cardboard at the end of the month for heavy users of cardboard as a pilot program to see how that goes. So if we can distill some of that some of that bulk out of there, >> right, >> in a monthly basis, we felt that that was relieving some of the pressure. adjust right >> at the bottom of the screen. It says
this places higher burden on the second cart user than the quote average household. Quantify that. What is that higher burden? Because I want to back that out of here. >> So the higher that was Yeah. So the projected that's that's the that's the assumption that if you're needing a second cart, you're filling the full the
first cart completely full whereas the average user would not be. And the the burden of the taxpayer is paying for the average cost >> and filling it full to what what weight? >> Filling it to 70 lb as opposed to 2 * 10
2 * 11 it' be 20 22 every other week. >> That's that's I'm just saying that's where the math comes from. >> Yep. >> So is in the same vein as what we were saying on the previous slide. Can we back out so that I think the service fee should be the same across all users and
just the cost of recycling. So this is just cost fee included in here. >> Correct. But this is assuming that the service is so above average that >> right >> I guess that's the problem here is that
the assumption that it's based on is so much greater than the average that it actually goes towards being cost prohibitive than it does going to be practicable. >> Yeah. We're first asking people to now recycle every two weeks and then we're going to ask them to pay an extra $100
every two weeks if they want to recycle more. >> You don't pay a trash barrel. >> Still cheaper. Still cheaper than the trash barrel. >> Still, >> but the trash barrel you can put more stuff in. >> But a greater variety of things. >> Put trash and recycling in. The recycle barrel you can only put recycling in. So
what will happen is the average overuser is going to buy a trash barrel and throw out the recycling which is not what we want to happen. We want to have them actively recycling just like they were because that is beneficial to the town. >> The if we're talking about the average >> in the environment >> if we're going to talk hold if we're
talking about the average user the average user uses 11 pounds per week or 22 pounds every other week >> of recycling >> of recycling 22 that's that's the number that sounds reason. So, so for the edge case that you can't fit every single
week that you can't fit >> non-existent, >> it's I I don't I really don't think you're going to have a lot of people that are going to need this. >> Well, time will tell. I really think these are the this is the edge case. >> So, if other than possibly commercial accounts uh that we do service, we still
have some businesses on Humphrey Street. They're probably going to need that. >> And there's a handful of residential addresses that have contacted us saying we have large families. Mhm. >> But is this possible? And I said, "Yeah, we're working on there'll be a fee. Sign up now. We'll get >> So the average user in Swamps is $22."
>> 22 lbs. >> 22 lbs. I'm sorry. Twice a month. >> Every other week. Yeah. 11 pounds. >> Yeah. 11B. 44 pound. >> So this projected capacity of 70 lb. This is just for the second barrel, not including the first barrel. >> 3x.
So, what about what about if we change the average capacity down to 45 pounds? >> Well, it should be 22. You're talking about two weeks of recycling. >> The capacity is just the capacity. It's not what you're It's not the usage factor. It's the capacity. >> But you said the usage was 11 pounds.
>> The usage is 11 pounds. If you have let's say 22 pounds for every other week, right? So, it's all the same time frame. So, if someone's coming in and that that is roughly going to be just less than half the barrel >> for the average user. If you have someone that is consistently needing the overage, that means they're not only
using twice as much as the average user, but over and above to fit in for a second barrel, then they're definitely taxing the system more than the average user. >> Hold on. So, can I just ask if we went down to the 22 >> pounds, what would the if this is the
ceiling, what's the floor? >> So, if that red number has changed from 69 to 22, is that what you're saying? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yes. If that's what the average is, we went down to the average. >> You would take What would that What would that cost? That cost >> Wayne's got the calculator coming up. >> Okay. Hold on. I'm going to guess around
50 bucks >> less. >> Yeah. >> I took the 69 and you said if you wanted to be 22. >> Yep. >> If that's the whatever that average number you said was, that's all I want it to be.
for so the first barrel effectively costs us in tipping $40 40.60 >> 40 >> actually yeah that's that's including the $12 uh >> that includes the $12. >> Yeah. >> So that green number
>> justify going over $50 for this barrel. >> Just to say >> that what >> and since this is such a case nobody's going to be buying it anyways. I can't justify if $40ish dollars is the dollar amount we're getting on average
>> for a second barrel, then plus the $12 it's going to cost for the second barrel. Like >> what are you saying? 42 plus 12. >> No, no, no. The 42 includes the 12. >> 42. >> All right. So, I'd like to make a I'd like to make a motion to >> $40.60. That's for 22.
>> Go to 50. I mean, I don't >> Yeah. >> No. Nope. Want to offset that extra five on the other side. So, I would make a motion to do the extra 96 gallon recycling cart for 42.
>> Hold on. >> Isn't the 42 Isn't the 42460? >> $4.60. I think $50 in reasonable because you're talking about an average plus or minus. >> Fine. I I don't I don't like I like
round numbers, so I'm fine with 50. And >> so So anybody who's going to need a second barrel, you're assuming that they're going to put 22 in one barrel and 22 in a second barrel. You're completely undercharging. But >> no, I'm No, we're going by your average that you just gave us. >> The average user doesn't fill up the
container. If you need a second container, then you're filling up that first container there. >> Or maybe you just have oversized recycling that you haven't broken down. I don't know. >> Right. I don't know. >> I agree with you. That's true. big cardboard that you didn't cut and it you can't fit. I don't have any idea, but I
don't think you have 69 pounds is my guess. >> I can't I'm not ar I can't argue with the survey numbers that were taken on a national basis. So I >> it's national basis. It's swampscott, right? >> No, I people in swamps.
>> No, these there are c multiple surveys that have been done. And this one happened to be one that the EPA backed um that was a Washington state study for single family co-mingled recycling at 126 pounds per cubic. >> You're basing this on numbers that are not even swamp Scott. Is that what
you're that's please don't tell me that. >> Absolutely I am. This this is this is this is this is you know there's a lot of data about national recycling. Okay. It doesn't matter if you're using you know this this is based upon a large residential component of people that
the average household recycling which is cardboard, glass, plastics, office paper and like 15 different things all malled together uncurry the lead. Mary Ellen was making a motion and I >> I second Mary Ellen's motion. >> Wait, wait. Mary Ellen, are you going to go to 50? Second.
>> No, she didn't. I I didn't, but I will. >> Okay. So, what's the motion? >> My motion My motion is the extra 96 gallon recycling second card annual fees $50. Okay. Can I have a second? I >> think Danielle did, right? Danielle, I thought you had a second.
>> Okay. All um >> roll call. >> Ted, sorry. Ted >> I >> Wayne >> nay. >> Marian >> I >> Danielle >> I >> I'm an I. >> Okay.
>> I appreciate respation and conversation. We don't have to agree on it all, but totally >> agree. And I appreciate all the data. >> I really appreciate all the time and energy you have spent on this. There's been a lot. You did provide a lot of data. You did a lot of digging. You tried to get the best information you
possibly could and give us that information. I appreciate that. Marielle, this you guys worked very hard with solid waste. Nick was involved. Gino, this was a laborsome intensive scenario and to open it up on situations
that we have never had before. wanted to say on behalf of the board, thank you both very much. >> So, I just want to say I just want to make sure the board understands something very important. One is I want to say thank you Wayne for all your hard work here. It you really put an amazing
amount of time and thank you for educating me on a lot of this stuff. the board. We need to really think when we're moving forward with finances whether or not we are going to have a trash fee or whether or not we are going
to keep it in our levy and that's something that you've got to be thinking about. So that's one question and the next question is what is the true cost? So >> good conversation for another day, >> right? Another day. >> I have a spreadsheet for that. When do
you think we should I would just like to understand like to manage expectations about trash feed conversations. How long do we predict that conversation need to occur? Because if we want to instill a trash feed by like if we want to have a conversation related to a
trash feed that would be instilled in a proper time, we're talking about what's the lead time >> ASAP. And the reason why it's ASAP is we're looking we're looking at
>> when we look at our budget for next year for 2028. We have to be honest about what is left is the unused tax levy. I mean we have for the last two years significantly dipped into our unused tax levy and we're going to have to really
make some hard decisions on how we want to deal with it going forward. whether or not we are just raising the levy and keeping trash in the levy or if we're removing trash out of it. So, I think that for anybody who watches these meetings, you should be letting letting
us know what what you prefer. Yeah, I think that was well put and I recall at town meeting this year, I think the chairman of the finance committee had in his memo on the back of all the warrants that we should be having conversations about offsetting expenses and new revenue opportunities
to help manage that fiscal cliff that we keep on pushing off a little bit more. But not >> and you also have to remember there there is a large percentage or there is a percentage of individuals taxpayers that do not receive this benefit right >> of trash you know and
>> I think that's a good point almost every project that was permitted through the planning board in my tenure most single family homes receive trash almost every multif family home greater than three units is private >> associations also >> right >> and the all the associations are all
private and so most of the multif family except for single and duplexes most not all are private. >> Yeah, they have commercial. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It's very typical. In fact, there's a um >> statewide there's a statewide um uh education process by the D trying to
mandate um those commercial facilities to recycle because they're not mandated to recycle. >> Interesting. We actually had a senior who came up and asked Republic to pitch their building to make sure they do recycling because they're not doing it right now. >> I bet. >> So,
>> yeah. >> Right. Well, that's something we should be we should be discussing a bylaw, right? >> As far as requiring um >> it's it's something that the solid waste when my previous tenure for the last year, the solid waste advisory committee has been trying to understand. And I believe Emily has a survey that she's
trying to put out to find out which com uh uh multif family unit properties actually are and are not recycling. So we can, you know, I don't want to have to create a bylaw in order to force it. I'd rather be a carrot versus a stick thing. So if there's an individual
oneoff, >> we can we can try to pursue educating on that versus having to do it. But if there's if we're not having any success in that, then why why wouldn't we do? there's precedent. Other other towns and cities have done that as well. >> This just seems like something we would put in a zoning bylaw for the approvals
that they would do. Like we have trash as part of the >> I agree >> site plan review. Um and whenever we do a multif family or a subdivision, we have to get a certified letter from the trash contractor that they're contracted to do all the private trash hauling. So >> seems
to what has to happen to do that? >> Can you do it just from the planning board side? >> I would defer to Nick. We can look into all of it to see if it's just a zoning bylaw change that can fall into the purview of the planning board. >> Okay, sounds good. >> Or if we need a bylaw that can be enforced through health or building, >> but that would be for all newly
permitted. Yeah. >> All existing permitted projects would be grandfathered into whatever the existing regs are >> or unless we affected a bylaw that moving forward or everybody that has multif family has to offer something. >> You'd have to do that through a general bylaw, but >> Right. Right. Right. Just the mechanics
of it. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I hear you. >> Yeah. This is not on the agenda, I think. >> No, it's not on the agenda. >> The agenda clear. >> Well, it is. I mean, >> well, it's covered. It's covered under solid waste services. >> Yeah, it would be covered under the agenda item, but we will move on to discussion and possible vote on the hot
RFP. You guys did a lot of work last two weeks ago. Um, cross off some of these, I see. So, that's nice. Um, so I just want to um >> What does that say?
I just want to talk about probably the uh I want to go a little bit out of order if that's okay. The walkability, the streetscape, and the synergy first. I think walkability was something
that I added to the discussion originally only because Vinnen the Vinen Swamp Scott Mall project had such a focus on it and you know we are trying with parking being such an issue we want to try to draw people into the space and
then have it be safe for them to be walking around the space without a vehicle. Um, so I don't know, the more I hear residents say just put the RFP out for the be the best thing and see what happens, you know, the more I'm intrigued by that
thought, but um didn't know. So it seems like walkability streetscape sort of fall on the lower end of the totem pole where >> they're nice to haves but would not be required. And if somebody came forward with a super fantastic idea, I would reconsider
>> probably both of those. >> I think we should consider actually waiting a proposal that could combine all of the things that people keep mentioning to us on a regular basis, including the people that came tonight to public comment. So, a proposal that
could combine revenue generating, open space, and parking, I'm just going to pick those three things would be weighted higher than one that focuses than one that focuses on just one of those items. I think we should consider that as a as a guardrail or or potential
guardrail. A proposal weighted higher that incorporates open space utilization, parking, and economic development, right? might it might be a a needle in a hay stack, but saying that we would give more priority or emphasis
to a proposal that can check all those boxes. Yeah. >> Might be something worth considering. >> Like you could score an extra point like if you have the category all these three categories in and of themselves and you have an omnibus category that you get a bonus point if you did all
>> exactly. If you can create a park and you can create a parking component and a revenue produced all of all of these key factors, right? Because this is we constantly are getting people giving us these three separate comments. I don't want residential. >> I do want you to sell it because I need
the revenue and I need to park. Right? These are common three the top three common things I'd say. Right? So if we can find >> I guess I totally agree and align with that. I guess the only thing I want to be clear about is what open space is.
>> I don't think we should define it. I really I think it should just be green space of I think we should keep it fairly general so that we don't back ourselves into a corner any which way, but it does have to have a component of I don't know walkable green space or
whatever you want to call it. I don't know how to phrase it, but >> but that's defining the open space right there. So we either define it or we don't. I think we have to define it if you're going to give credit for it, right? Because I think people will skirt the like the fringes and be like, "Oh, well
this, you know, these benches are open space." Like is that like >> and if you don't quantify it, I'm not saying we should quantify it, but if you're going to allow somebody to say I hit all three categories, >> we should give garb saying how we define our assessment of those three
categories. So we should somehow define them. Well, that that part I haven't thought about. >> Through like >> you know there's active recreation areas, there's passive recreation areas. Are we looking through at a framework of sitting on a bench and green around greenery or uh uh I don't know a
amphitheater or some walking trails or something of that nature. I mean >> yeah I mean this is like the heart of the Hawthorne issue right because nobody defined it when we sold it to towning originally. So now we're defining it post everybody supporting it. And so like this is the quagmire that we've
gotten ourselves in and and I don't think we're actually gonna make everybody happy because I think if you pulled the audience of 300 plus town meeting members, everybody would have come up with a different idea of what they thought open space meant when the term was used when they voted. >> Um but if we could just give some guard
rails enough, right? >> Right. something that today we can sort of put pens to paper, come back next meeting with that idea sort of flushed out more. Maybe Nick can there's a couple RFPs out there that Brian provided that maybe did this once or
twice that we can borrow. I mean, um, nobody's saying we have to recreate the wheel here, but as long as it sort of drives, maybe we could come up with some examples of what that definition looks like and if we could get aligned, I totally agree that sort of if we hit those three marks, >> it's like a bonus category, right?
That's what I'm that's the only waiting that I'm talking about. I you know I haven't really again I haven't quantified it in terms of how but it just seems to me that every the majority of people in this town have that those three difference of opinions and if we can try to make everybody give a little
bit maybe that could be like a bonus weighted option. You know, >> when we say go, go ahead, Mar. >> Well, one of the for me, uh, number nine, the synergy with the hotel and the commercial corridor is really paramount
because that's what's going to really drive the downtown area there that it all it all works together. The walkability and the streetscape, I think, you know, I really don't uh have a whole lot to say about that because it is where it is. So, you're going to walk to
it or you're not. the streetscape. I think that's going to be somebody's design or their idea, but the synergy and making sure that we can, you know, really solidify the hotel and get a healthy hotel is critical for the town.
The one worry that I have is putting municipal parking on there. And the reason why is if I'm a um if I'm a company that wants to say, "Listen, I'll come in and build a x square footage facility that you can have restaurants,
catering, a function center, whatever, I need that parking." So, if I have to if I look at that and say, "Well, they're going to want municipal parking. How am I going to have parking to uh support my business?" Is there
>> I'm just worried if it would be a negative to the business whereas >> Yeah. >> Is it either technically or environmentally feasible to have underground parking? >> It's anything possible. >> Cost prohibitive. >> It's cost prohibitive. It's what we're talking about,
>> right? >> I spoke to somebody in Quinsey who's putting in I think a the town of Quinsey is putting in what $200 million garage down there and every underground space is estimate of $40,000. Wow.
But with that being said, you somebody a geotechnical specialist would have to go there figure out what they'd have to do to get it there. >> But the presumption would be it would be quite expensive. >> Okay. >> I don't even know cost. >> I don't even know if the lot would be large enough to support >> Right. >> Right. the structure >> the effort of getting in and out you
know that big of a lot. It's not landlocked and it's a retaining wall holding. I mean I don't know. I'm not a geotech >> but >> engineer but >> to I have two. I don't disagree with Marielleen's statement um about the synergy to the hotel, but could you
align with the three prongs creating the commercial corridor synergy because we are we are weighing revenue and parking and open space like combination greater the combination of the three.
>> Say that again. Yeah. >> So by by weighting all of those three together and then essentially saying you're going to get weighted higher if you provide parking and have some sort of revenue
producing ability on the lot. Are you not helping to blossom the commercial corridor? I'm not not sure that it's exactly synergizes with the hotel, but at least the commerce piece by allowing for parking, municipal parking or and
driving revenue. Don't you think you're doing that >> mutually? >> I think that No. >> Yeah. >> I mean, can you say something? >> I'm looking at it with the >> looking at as a business person. I mean, I've been in business a long time and if I'm looking at coming in and investing capital and you're you're saying, "Well,
I'm going to weigh out municipal parking." I I have to say, how am I going to run a how am I going to run a big serious business that's going to support this hotel and the rest of the corridor and I also have to provide municipal parking. >> But here's the thing, you don't have to. >> Right?
>> None of these >> are absolutely >> none of these are and in my opinion should be absolute because if we're doing that, we're dictating the outcomes and I don't think any of us are commercial developers here. No. So if we are going to do that for one thing, we
should have that conversation with multiple things. And I think if we do that, we get into a rabbit hole. I don't disagree with you. If somebody puts in a great banquet hall here and needs to have that for private parking and they want to put together a gang busters plan, >> great. That's great. But if >> 100% I want every idea on the table. But
if somebody comes in here and says, I want to put something else here. Yeah, you want municipal parking. We'll give you 10 spots if it gives us plus one points. >> I'd love to consider it. I don't know if either one of those is the right answer, >> but I know it gives us more options to consider if we don't rule things out. We just reflect what our priorities are,
>> right? >> And then we can evaluate each respondent based on our priorities. So yeah, a banquet hall could get five out of five for revenue generation and synergy with the hotel and a zero out of five for parking. But if it does some of the other stuff with it, it gets a better score.
>> The inverse could be said. No, I only want to just tackle back to the walkability for a second because you brought up the design standards for Vin and Square. >> Yeah. >> The only real reason we did that there was cuz we were trying to incentivize people to park their car out of the 837 spaces that they're about to be there for all the folks that complain there's
not enough parking there. Um >> 837 spaces. >> 837 >> um to encourage people to park once and walk to everywhere else there and not move their car again. I don't think that's what you were calling walkability. >> I don't think we have that problem on this site. That's less than I think less than half maybe even a third of the land
area there. So >> just since you brought it up I just want to provide the lens that >> the different lenses for the two part parcels. >> What's the need? I mean quantified what's the parking need >> for downtown. >> Yeah. I emailed you the parking survey during this meeting. So you'll you'll see it when you
>> I mean I think we have to think too of >> study of having a >> Oh, do we have a hotel sitting across the street >> that is going to necessitate parking, right? I mean the whole area. >> Well, they're talking about valeting as well off >> site, >> right? But I mean, maybe some of them, maybe not all, I don't know. And the
workers that are going to work there also, >> you know, and we're trying to amp up the development and the commerce. >> People are only going to come if they have somewhere to park. I mean, in theory, it would be great if they all walked there, but, >> you know, we we have a parking problem without any of this extra development.
We're looking for more. >> I mean, that's all people talk about is parking, >> right? Again, I don't think any I I'm certainly not expecting us to have spent $7 million for somebody to come in here and put a four-story LAZ parking parking garage here. That's 100% not what we
should have there. >> Exactly. >> But if somebody's going to come in there and develop part of it, the Hawthorne reuse plans, I think, had some of them have between 20 and 30 spots and say yes, these will be open to the public or the town them or whatever 15. You know, if you can right give them that, you can give them some green space and you can
give them development of commer, you know, uh, restaurants, cafes, you know, economic development, >> but if it doesn't work for their business, they just don't get the plus five points or plus two points or whatever. I I >> I'm just a blank slate on it. I just want to see what developers bring to us.
But I think we just need to reflect our priorities in here. And I think it is a priority to have some form of municipal parking if it's possible for their business and if they want to try and find a way to get extra bonus points or whatever we want to call it. >> Okay. So I think >> Wait a minute.
>> So So is walkability really the conversation about parking versus walk is it we're kind of shifting. I just want to make sure we're we're >> well I'm saying we don't need walkability in there >> but we need parking. Walkability to me is the >> parking is already on here. It's number four. But walkability can be removed as
a non-issue, >> right? >> Yeah, that was my suggestion along with Mary Ellens to just >> and number four was >> should we take off streetscape too, >> right? Isn't that a planning? >> Well, I think >> so that's covered. >> Streetscape was one of the one of their committees design was to put some of the
buildings on the sidewalk and there was a long historical conversation about why to do that. It was a placemaking conversation, but that was the lens they were looking at it through. So I think if we show no preference then we show no preference right that's fine.
I think in the air of what we're talking about or you know in the vein of what we're talking about then we should leave it open. We should not dictate streetscape. We should let them come forward and we should decide from the pool of >> right >> um biders you know what the best option is. really the only thing we've landed
on um is sort of like defining what we think open space is so that when we if we are going to create some sort of bonus combo of >> discussion points then we should be able to say that's the open space is X um when you're thinking about it
>> and and defining what the community use is cuz there's there's open space but what are we going to actually be using it for? >> Maybe it's usable green space. I don't know how >> Yeah, I don't actually I don't open space and recreation dictating community use. I think if it's open space, it's open space and we shouldn't dictate
community use, but >> well, we should dictate that it's public property, >> right? >> Yeah, that's it. >> Period. >> And maybe maybe there's a conversation we have about if the town has preferential rights to I don't know reserve it or >> water. I mean, maybe it's to the waterfront, maybe it's to water views or
something that >> from the street as well, >> right? >> Yeah. I think we have to define it in some respect because I think if not it just gets railroaded over. >> There was some verbiage that Brian >> sent this out. There was some nice verbiage in there that covers that. I agree with a number of things in this. I
don't agree with it all but I agree with a number of things in this and there there were some parts of it that were actually >> found helpful. >> I think I don't want you can take a couple of things off what we're saying. >> That's what we're we're keeping both of us. >> Yeah. >> So I think the only thing we haven't touched on is residential use. We talked
about that last. >> I thought we said we talked about it. >> We talked about it last. >> We I think we t wanted to table it up. >> I don't think it was a decision in the same way some other. >> Yeah. Right. When you were you thoughts on it, Katie, that you wanted to >> you weren't here. >> Yeah. I mean, I I don't I think that
when this was all presented um at town meeting that they the Hawthorne Reeves Committee leaned heavy on residential use as the only way that a developer could afford um to be able to create
this sort of mixed use space, right? That I I don't I'm not a developer. I don't know if that's true. I would prefer not to have residential here. I think that is not what the spirit of what was talked about at town meeting. I
think um that I have a a preference not to have it. Am I saying it's a nogo? No. If that's what makes >> the best and highest use of I mean I don't want a condo of $4 million homes here. But if they're hitting the other
things, but they need residential to take them to a certain spot, I I will consider it. I don't want to like narrow my choices, but I do have not a great taste in my mouth about it.
>> So, I I am an absolute no on residential. Um I think that with residential, you lose more parking. I think uh tonight we had an individual I'm so sorry I forget her name but >> Paula Clarage
>> Paula what I mean I I did agree with what you know what she said I've heard this several times that once you have residential there also becomes a feeling or a claim to the property >> and I think that's that's would be a negative a big negative in that area.
So, and I I believe that um I'm not a developer, but I also don't think there was a developer on the Hawthorne Reuse Committee. So, I'm not really buying that you absolutely have to have residential there. Um, you know, I'm just strictly for
commercial and making something commercial work. I don't disagree with anything that was said, but um that's why I would prefer to score something that includes residential as a negative instead of a positive. But >> yeah, that's what I was going to
>> like if we go everything on a zero to five scale and then a multiplier if it hits the three categories that we're wanting. I'm fine with putting residential on there, but with a developer knowing they could get negative five points for having residential residential on there, excuse me, I just I don't want to cut our noses
to spite our face. I agree with everything that Paula said and I've heard it from a lot of folks that, you know, if you're adjacent to a park and you live in a condo there, there's a sense of ownership and we've heard that around town many, many, many times. >> But I guess what I don't understand though is though, if you're if if you're saying if you're going to if you're
going to grade somebody negative, why >> don't even have it. >> I don't want to because I don't know if they're going to need that to present an idea that we don't even know. We haven't even thought of, but it meets all of our other categories. Yeah, >> I still don't know if we would select that idea, but we should be able to consider every idea without eliminating
something off the bat. So again, it is not my preference to have residences there. I don't think it's I'm going to go on a limb and say I don't think it's anyone on this board's preference to do it there, but it is our preference to get the best possible project. And that may mean residences are part of a
proposal that we can score negatively or not choose. But I'm not in a decision now to say we shouldn't have something and that might limit the number of proposals and the quality of proposals that we get because I don't think we're at that stage yet and I just want to get the ideas that we need to get to make an informed conversation.
>> I think that's a great point. >> So I I I I appreciate what you're saying and I think that was a good explanation. I I look at this as a hard note for a couple of different reasons. It's just philosophically it's both about yes people will feel as though they have ownership of a public area which I I
believe was not the intent of of town meeting um you know it is it is a whether or not it's an open space or it's a commercial space it is a public usage area and I want to I want to leave it like that um I think there's a strong
sense of of viability of of bringing that in. I think we have we we you're not looking at creating affordable housing there. You're looking at creating, you know, if it's housing, it's something that's going to be something that's going to be accessible only to a very very limited, you know,
part of the population. Um, I was frankly upset 15 years ago when they put the Concordia in and blocked all the views and the fact that it was not used for some other public benefit in in a business area. So, no, I I just to me
it's it's just a hard no. I don't I don't want to taint the water, if you will, by even saying that it's a possibility. There's too many there's enough variables as it is. There's a ton of variables. I mean, a lot of variables, let alone every voice in the community coming up with
their own. I think this is for me a hard stop. >> I think we actually should move tonight to solidify that and to come out and say no residential. I I really think that we can we would debate this for weeks and
months and months, but at some point this body has to make hard choices and we can't be so um waffling on every single one of these. I think this is the one where we can definitively say we we do not want residential. Come up with
some other grand plan that is fabulous that is going to produce economic development and give us some green space and some parking, but we're saying no to residential. I think we have to do it. I think we absolutely have to do it and formally do it. That would be my recommendation is that we formally take
residential off the table. >> Do I make a motion? >> Uh I don't Do we need a motion? I don't know. But that's my recommendation that we would not consider res. >> If you're just building consensus, I would agree as as I said before. the the way you described it, you could
make a motion if you chose, but >> you are you are able to make a motion by the duly posted agenda. Um >> well, I would make a motion that we definitively say for this RFP for the Hawthorne property, we will not consider residential development.
>> I would second that. >> Okay. Is there any more discussion or you want to take a vote? I just think it's like we have we we're going to debate this and continue to debate it as we should but we have been doing this for years and at some point the rubber
has to meet the road and we have to give some serious guidelines as to what we want to see there right and we can say we want to see great proposals and combinations of things and I'm all for all of that and not really trying to limit it but there are some things we have to limit we've heard I Paula made
excellent points tonight and to Wayne's point absolutely you put any number of residential there and it becomes they own the entire area, right? And that is not the spirit of this thing. This thing has gone from being an all of a park to I want it to be economic. It
it's not an absolute anything. But one thing for sure I think people in this town do not want is residential there. I think that you know, >> but how do you know we can get the other things we want without including residential? >> This is a special. one way to find out and it's to put out an RFP that says we can't have residential there, which is
the number one way developers make their money on the short term because it's a guaranteed. So, if we're saying we don't want residential, we are limiting the ability of us to get the quality of respondents that that parcel deserves. And again, I am not advocating for residential. Again, I do not want to come off as a residential guy. I am not
advocating for that. I am just saying we should go into this asking for the best responses we can and then if we get a response that has residential, we can grade it. great at negative and we can >> I don't want to say be mean to it but we can do whatever we want right we can evaluate it based on the merits but
right now we're putting >> and I agree in spirit but I think we're limiting the ability of us to get a what to get the responses of the quality that we may want we may not get any residential responses if we grade it negatively I don't know but I want to see something on paper to grade not just
the idea of what we think might work there >> I I >> and I respect where you're coming from so we probably just going to have some disagreement but Yeah. I mean, I I understand what you're saying, but I think that at the end of the day, um, >> it this is a needle in a hay stack
property that is going to require a really special out of the ordinary proposal to to really satisfy what the what the property is worth. And, >> you know, throwing up a couple of luxury condos is really just not in the spirit
of what the people of this town want. >> Agree. Right. And I think at some point that has to matter a little bit more than we've given it >> credence to thus far. Right. >> Well, I think by I think by saying that you're the initial conversation that we
started with saying that you're weighing this combination higher than anything else proposed shows like we're not just looking for condos. We're not looking for the Concordia at Hawthorne. We're looking for something that is going to
be a renaissance for that area. I think it's very clear if a RFP respondent is worth their weight in salt, they're watching these meetings and they're hearing these conversations. And what I don't want to do as I do I I don't want to see residential, but I also don't want to cut off my nose to spite my face
and lose the opportunity to just see something really spectacular and then say, you know what, it's not spectacular enough because it has residential. So, I'm going to pass. Like, I don't want to lose the ability to be able to do that because we're not talking I don't want to pick the best option
out of lesser options potentially is what I'm trying to get at. So, I I I totally align with everything that you and Marielleen and Wayne are saying. I just wonder why we can't draw the line in the sand after the responses rather than before we get them. >> I I I I would wonder whether or not
we're confusing the ideation process to the people who have the developers are going to be investing time in doing this, >> right? >> And and even if if it's going to be a negative, it's a negative. It's something we we've all agreed that we not just not prefer, but many several of
us, right, just don't want. And I don't even want to give a leash out that says, "Hey, maybe if you can do all this other stuff >> because then you'll be enticed to maybe consider it." >> Yeah. >> And that gets away from the >> I don't want to waste their time.
>> But if we're doing this, >> I guess if I'm Go ahead. Sorry. >> I just I'm hearing everybody say, "I really don't want I don't want residential." And we're hearing people saying, "I don't want a residential." >> Well, if you don't want residential, >> I don't think we should put it in there.
I don't I I don't want to grade you negatively. I just want to be really clear. We're not looking for residential. And if somebody comes back and says, "This is a project we can do, and it looks great, but you need to have x amount of units as residential." I
still think that no, it's not great because it's not going to work in that area. I mean, with I don't need to be a wait, let me let me finish what I'm saying. I don't need to be a contractor. The fact is residential, if we have residential, we lose parking. And we're
saying here that parking is important. We're saying here that economy is important. And in order to have economy, you have to have parking. In order to have open space, you have to have parking. And I think you also had height. You had
>> what what if what if the hotel came in and said, "We want to bid on that property as a a ballroom, but we need six livable units there to make it doable for us." And they're not even going to park there. They're going to park in conjunction with the hotel somewhere else. We're figuring that out with that problem across the street.
Like, what if they came forward and wanted to do that? And the and you removing the ability to have six units means their offers off the table because they can't make it work. But aren't they six units for a hotel? Isn't that in a different category? >> No, they What if they want to make them permanent residents? Like they have that
at West Harford. >> That's how you do your permanent resvenue on day one >> because it's guaranteed revenue and it means coming in the door that they have they don't need the on-ramp. They have something that's going to make them get through the lean part of the beginning. >> Mhm. >> I I just I think
>> if they have a ballroom, >> something like that is really interesting, right? Something like that could be really um helpful to that area. Something like that is in synergy with the hotel. Something like that could have open space as a wedding venue. Something like that could have beautiful
walkability and a fantastic streetscape and would potentially have building reuse or something like that, but we're losing out on it because we said absolutely unequivocally no residential. So that's a I think that so that is a really good point, but I guess I look at
that as a I guess I I look at that as a hotel use, not as a condominium use. >> But if they're long-term living in the in those units, then like like that's residential, >> right? >> Like the Four Seasons or the Rits that have res.
>> Yes. Yeah. They have, you know. >> Okay. So >> then I'm changing my mind and keeping it open. Why we why is it residential if it's like the Ritz like for rental residences that res
like Red Sox like Red Sox Red? >> No, they're residences or condos. They're managed by Red. >> They're a licensed management company through Marriott. >> Yeah. >> And >> I don't know. >> Yeah, I I I still say no. It's not in the spirit of why we bought property. >> I don't think it is.
>> I don't think Katie and I are disagreeing with that at all. We just want to see options and make have this conversation so when we have that's fair. Let's let's play that out. Let's play that that that v the the the paradigm out that you're suggesting and it comes in and says, you know, we can
get this to work and there's residences there and maybe it's the definition of how many residences or what it looks like. >> I'm still I'm still kind of being like no. >> Then that's that's fine. That's >> I'm just saying I'm just playing that totally fine. >> Is there an amount of money? Huh?
>> I mean, >> your choice. You could do that by leaving it open. You're able to say, "No, this is the use isn't great enough or so advantaging the community that I would consider residential." That's fine. That's your choice. >> And you should, right? Okay. >> I I think that I mean, if you look at
the area surrounding, there's six, seven, eight maybe condo little associations like within a stones throw of this thing. And I just >> they're pretty big. That's all you hear from people in this town is that we can't it's taking away from the small town feeling of what we even six units
even eight units and I cannot get out of my head what Paula said because every time you go to Eisman's beach you know there's a number of people that think you shouldn't be able to use that beach because it's they own it because they live adjacent to it like there I really do believe that point of putting a park
there they this association will feel like they own it and I think that takes away from what we're trying to do at the heart of it. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. I need to think about this. >> We would have to landscape design, but >> I don't want to get down that rabbit hole, but I understand the perspective.
I agree in theory with it. My only point is I would much rather have this exact conversation we're having >> with something with the proposal cuz again, >> interesting. >> I I don't want anyone to go on to go on the Swamp Scott Times tonight and say
Ted and Katie are advocating for condos all over Haw. or not. No, I know. >> You just want to have something to react to rather than to react to a concept that none of us have the professional experience to >> ideulate what may or may not need to happen. And I don't know that.
>> So, can we table this and talk about it? >> Yes, we can. Think about it a little longer. Think about the examples that think about other examples and we can bring it back up. We have plenty of time. We'll bring it back up >> and people can call Ted and Katie and >> Yeah. give their opinion on residential, >> right? Yes.
>> Or Mary Ellen and give their opinion. Well, now Mary Ellen's been now I'm back and now I'm I'm on the fence. >> Yeah, Jack Jack douly answers my question these days. So, >> I'll have they can talk about Spider-Man all day. >> All right. >> All right. So, let's uh we'll put this
back on. Folks can come to public comment and convince us otherwise. And we will move on to the consent agenda. >> I mean, does it make sense for us to start having like public hearings about this thing? Is that a thing? No. >> No. We've I think we've done enough public hearings. I I think now we have
to make the we have to make the big decisions >> because we're just I mean we're asking people to come to what? Public comment and comment and >> No, I was just making a joke like if you didn't like what you just heard, you're always welcome to come to public comment. I do a lot of public engagement. >> I like how well I like how we're doing this in an iterative process because it
does give the public an opportunity when they see it on the agenda to come and speak to it. >> So, >> is that enough? >> I I think so. And they're free to contact us as well. And we we've we've got we've got a committee report. We've got five years of data. But also, let's not forget Nick and staff have to go take these conversations, do the laborious work of figuring out how to
put it in a rubric and an RFA format for us then to come re once, wait two weeks, read again, get public comment on both of those times. So, there's a significant runway we have in front of us. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Can I can we can we go back to the one we started with which was synergy with
hotel commercial corridor >> just for didn't we start with that one? >> This one we started with >> tonight. >> Right. So, just to be clear, we removed the walkability issue. >> Streetscape. I I we kind of shifted off that without me kind of getting a better understanding what you meant by streetscape in general when you first
proposed it. >> That too where the building is located on the lot. >> Why Why does that matter? Why do we have to judge that? Why wouldn't we just >> Well, we don't. We >> That was that I'm just making sure I understood how >> Can we take that off? >> Yeah, >> we can. Yeah, I thought that's what we decided. Sorry. I thought
>> Okay. I thought we had let them do what they're going to do and then we'll see what it looks like and if we hate it we hate it like we like it. >> What does that leave? What is actually left if we've taken off of these things though? >> It's not that we took Do you mean what does it leave to discuss? >> Well, what are we you know what is the
the areas that we're still really talking about? Is it residential, open space, >> synergy and parking or no? Am I do I have that right? >> No, I think we >> building demolition still. No, I think you I mean they're crossed off because town hall staff felt like you came to
conclusions in the last meeting. So, is that not the case? >> I don't know about the building use versus demolition. >> We briefly talked about that but didn't come to it. >> I think that one might still be on there >> and environmental standards. I'm trying to remember the environmental standards is we already we already have we have
the stretch plus that acceptable. We don't need it to be passive house if that's not what >> right >> and the HERS code every year that we wait the HERS code gets tighter. So you know >> the building is getting better and better. >> I I thought it was not about the energy consumption. I thought it was about the
general environmental standards of Okay. >> So it's really residential open space parking and building use verse demolition, >> right? >> Yeah. And I think what what I think what we had said earlier was this idea of like open space revenue producing and
parking getting some sort of bonus you know thought from us and therefore that would prioritize it for any respondent although not make it ineligible if they didn't have all three >> and then that way they would understand the priority of it. We have to figure
out if residential will be considered at all. And then I think we need to define what open space is a little bit better than we have so that they can understand if they do try to get into that, you know, trifecta that they um they are
following what we believe to answer that call. >> Do we need do we need to provide a preference in terms of what the commercial space is going to be? other than just synergy do we need and I'm not saying that it's I'm just I'm just throwing this out right I'm not exactly sure what how to
manage this part of it but if we have a preference on types of the type of commercial entities we might want to see is there a preference that we can grade that on in other words some may want to see restaurants uh someone may want to see an art gallery some may want to see
you know an open market I I'm just saying there's been things that have been proposed over them over the years. Do we place these as, >> you know, they're not hard lines, but do we place them as as as possible suggestive options?
>> I'm not a developer, but I think what happens, and somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, is that you decide how big the building is, you break it up into spaces, and then you go out and find tenants. You're not necessarily going to know when you bid on the RFP who your tenants are. So, I think it would again if we're
talking about restricting a response to make somebody tell you in advance that they're going to have >> parks and cultural tenant and restaurant ten like they can they can sort of give us some ideas of the directions but I think you know unless there's something
you don't want to see there like a pot shop or something like that then >> that g I don't think we want to >> it's more tax revenue dictate that >> six pot shops. That's what we need on record >> liquor store
>> in a 99 in a bag. That's not what we need. That would be great. >> Everybody will be >> I don't know how many licenses we have left. So, >> I don't think we have any left. >> So, there you go. >> On marijuana, >> the the you the use is going to be dictated by the use table in the zoning language because we can't use that's not
permanent anyway. And I understand your point. Should we refine that funnel? But >> yeah, >> we really can. Yeah, >> I would be concerned about the same thing that I before Right. So, to Katie's point, you have the building envelope, right? And you can make that
do many different things, but if we said, you know, we would be wanting a >> uh a large restaurant like >> I'm not saying that's what we want, but you're going to have to actually define that as a larger proportional space that has commercial kitchen capabilities, which is
>> Oh my god. >> I think we're >> not saying that's what I'm suggesting, but you have to define that to at at at like no >> when you bid out a project like this and you're building it and then you're thinking about tenency and revenue over you know your schedule to figure out if
you're making your money back in the time frame that you're b you know whatever you borrowed you need to make back like we need to make sure that sort of everything is open for the ability to have success >> and I don't think like it makes sense for the four of us to sit here and dictate
>> what we want to see there over what can be there. Do you know what I mean? Like I >> It's the same argument. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> There's five of us debating this point though, Katie. >> Yep. >> So, it's 10 o'clock. >> It's 10 o'clock. It's 10 o'clock.
>> Thanks, Mar. >> I think uh >> All right. I think we can we'll we'll take this conversation again. It's not done. And we've given the takeaways that we hope to talk about, people could try to define open space. Look in Wayne um not Wayne, Brian's um RFP. I think he
has a definition in there. We can try to see what we we have going on there. And then let's move on to the consent agenda, please. >> Okay. Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I call. Sorry. Wayne
>> I >> Danielle >> I >> and I am an I. Okay. Is that uh board select board time? >> Yes, I have something. So I >> please >> um I think most of us are aware of the
trials and tribulations of Lincoln's Landing that they've been going through. Um I just want to say that I'm in complete support of that establishment that has been in this town for over 50 years, not that particular owner. Um and I really feel badly that they are close
to being evicted. They have a court hearing this week and I really think that this is one of those times where I feel like it's appropriate to step up for the little guy and I think that's what this board should consider doing. Um, I have done it on a personal level,
but I think we really should consider um supporting this local business who has been here a long time. And granted, they have having a legal issue we do not necessarily want to get involved in, but that doesn't mean that we can't voice our support um if we feel that's
appropriate. That would be my suggestion, my recommendation. But just wanted to put that out there. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Danielle. Any other board members have comment? >> Um, I do. I I want to say thank you to
Daniel Moritzky, Alex Darfis. Alex, how do you say your last name? >> He had left, but it's Dash Perez. >> Desh Perez. Okay. And uh Nate Bishine and Nathan. Thank you very much for u
always working so hard here. I also want to um recognize the Dement family. they lost Carol Dementoto. Um, Carol Dementoto was a a very big volunteer for our community. Carol was the head of the finance committee at the most critical
time period of finance committees. Carol was the chair at the time we left um two and a half Proposition 2 and a half. And I can just tell you as a member of the finance committee, it's um it's never easy, but I can't imagine what it was
like at that time. So, I just want to give um my condolences to the Demental family. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> I would share those condolences as well. Um both of them have been stewards in
this community for a very very very long time. Um, aside from that changing the tone for just a second. Um, I really think I'm going to go do what we talked about before. The, uh, the
community event with the FIFA World Cup was really something to see to see hundreds and hundreds of people even coming from out of town. >> Mhm. >> Gathering and um, it it was it was a nice community event. I I'm I'm glad the
foresight between Charlotte and town staff was there to promote it. Um, one little ask, more bathroom, more bathrooms, >> lots of lines. No one knew, I don't think anyone knew it was going to be that popular. It was great
>> that that said, um, also thank you. Um, I want to thank uh Emily Westovin for putting a lot of her uh volunteer time into helping um with the trash roll out and uh thank you to staff, both of both Nick and Shannon um and Gino and the
rest of the staff for for working hard to make sure that this roll out goes smoothly. >> Um okay, thanks Wayne. Tad, do you have anything tonight? >> No, just to share my condolences with the deto family. Otherwise, um that's my my only comment this evening.
>> Great. So, we will um on behalf of the board to the Dement family, our deepest condolences and I know I brought it up earlier, but also to the Taboli family for their loss and >> Paul's contribution to our community. Appreciate that very much. Um and I will
echo um praise for the rec department. I mean, talk about becoming a destination spot. Mh. >> Um, we were one of few communities of our size who were able to get the licensing to and pull off FIFA events on
Town Hall lawn. And you know, I know for my family and my kids and my kids friends and family, it was incredible to see the kids playing soccer on the side and watching the game and being interactive and not just sitting on the couch. And you know, the opposite of
loneliness is community. And so it's so important and I'm very proud of the rec department for doing that. So thank you Charlotte >> and the rec department >> and DPW and police and everybody else who supported um wreck in this endeavor.
>> So >> yeah, >> how about a motion to adjourn? >> So move second. >> Um and I will take a roll call. Wayne >> I >> Ted >> I. >> Danielle >> I. >> Mariel >> I. >> And I am an I. Thank you everyone.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good night.