Oh, I did. be my pleasure >> just for tonight. >> Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the select board regular session for Monday, April 27th. We are being recorded. Please rise for the pledge.
I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All righty. Uh just to note, the agenda does say that the water sewer
infrastructure advisory committee will be joint meeting with us, but we're not sure they're going to have a quorum. So we are just going to hear from the chair and vice chair. >> Yes. >> So um that is why I did not announce that at the top of the meeting but we will start with the town administrators
report please. >> Good evening. Thank you. Um so I just wanted to give an update. One of the requests that's been made from the board that um I've worked with both chiefs on and I will begin this Friday is uh some sort of weekly stats on police and fire
uh number of calls responses that type of thing. so that you as a board will see it. I think rather than running it down in this meeting, I can send it as sort of a Friday update to you and future members uh so that folks will have the information that they might be interested in. Um an update I wanted to
give is that we have um been working with do we are going to have the department of revenue at the state level. We're going to have a municipal finance fellow this summer, which is a program where um local college and community college students go through an intensive um five-week training in
addition to their academic training with do and then spend uh about seven weeks with us working on projects that we will identify. this individual work directly with Patrick and uh Liam and we're looking forward to having this this resource and it's also an opportunity over time to begin to build a network of
folks that might be able to take on some of the entry level positions on our finance team in the future. So, we're very excited that DO reached out to us. Um, and it is a a free resource to us. Uh, but also the individual is paid uh by the state. So, it gives us again another set of capable hands and we're
we're looking forward to that individual joining us. When they do come on board, we'll introduce them to the full board. Um, I wanted to give a brief update. There's been questions from board members and others about um the INI policy. I've continued to have a number
of discussions uh with proponents of projects in town that had questions about both the application of it, the multiplier. Um and we are currently reviewing um a project at the Swanson Scott Mall to understand some of the work that has been done and whether it
would fit uh under the waiver process. I think the policy that we have is pretty clear on where we stand. I've I've spoken to uh the proponent uh a few times, spoke to him this afternoon. he understands where we are, but we are reviewing some engineering information that they provided to our town engineer
DPW director. Um, and we'll continue that conversation, but I wanted to make sure folks knew where it was in case it does come before the board in the future as well. Um, finally, I just wanted to highlight, and I know we'll be talking about this a little bit later, you all have a draft of the lease for um, the
Hawthorne property. We had an outstanding question on liquor liability. I was away last week and we did not get that answer until today. So, the proponents have the lease. they have not yet signed it. Um, but what you have in front of you includes the term, includes all the liquor, I mean, all the liability insurance that we're
requesting of them. Um, and has answered all of the outstanding questions that our attorneys had from our side certainly. Um, and so we're looking forward to having a discussion with you all tonight about that and also continuing to move forward. Um, and then finally, you know, knowing that it's uh Doug and David's last meeting, I just
wanted to personally say thank you for the last six months. Um, I'm probably the first of many that will say things like this tonight, but this is my chance. Uh, thank you both for helping me get my feet under me here and, uh, certainly helping me to to get a lay of land in town. So, thank you both. Uh, I've appreciated the working with you
for the last six months. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Any questions? >> Good. >> Anything on the uh, fisherman's beach study? Um, I do not have anything for you right now. I had asked Gino for an
update and we have Kleinfelder who had been out there last week to make sure that the work that had been done was completed and up to snuff and we will obviously be doing um testing at the beach this summer so that we know >> the water quality is where it needs to be as well.
>> Client was there last week, >> right? But I'm not asking about the water quality. >> Okay. I'm asking about the study that was investigating ways to address uh sea level rise and the whole kind of management of that area that we engaged
with them on quite a while ago and they gave us some interim report quite a while ago and I think we're well past time when it was supposed to be finished. So sorry if I was not clear in my request of you because I yeah I was a
little bit kind of wondering why you were going to go genome because I thought it was actually a Marsy thing but >> is that the updated report? Well, they we had engaged them to do another study, right, right, of like, you know, should we build higher seaw walls? Should we be doing something around the fish house? Like what are all the ways in which
we're actually going to take determined, you know, managed retreat, yada yada yada, right? Um, so that that's been outstanding for a while. >> That was a couple years, right? >> I don't think it's quite that long, but it's it's been a while. So, so I can commit to coming back with Marzy. I know
there'll be new membership, but >> if you tune in, I'm happy to provide that update at the next meeting and we'll make sure it's on the agenda. >> I apologize. I thought you were looking at the water quality, not the sea level rise. >> Maybe I'll call you with the info. >> I'll be waiting.
>> Um what uh did you have any other followup because you had sent a do we get everywhere else or not yet? >> Yeah, I think uh we'll pick up other things as we go along. >> Okay. David, >> you're good. >> Nothing else. >> Okay. Um, I have received uh just to say
it, Nick, I know you and I briefly talked before this evening, I have received the feedback from the current board members on the town administrator six-month evaluation. I will be compiling it and I will be back sometime in May to discuss publicly um the compilation of all that, but it will be
considered completed by this board, although there'll be two members here who will hear what y'all have thought. >> Great. Um, okay. So, let's uh move on to public comment, please. I have um one public comment that I would like to read, but
if there's comment in the room, we'll let you guys go first. >> Please approach the mic, state your name and your address, and um please limit to three minutes. Nick, if you wouldn't mind leaving time, that would be helpful. Thank you.
>> Issues, so you're gonna see me read it off the screen. Okay, thank you. >> Uh, Miguel Contras, uh, 46 Buen a Vista, uh, speaking as a resident, not school committee member or speaking for the board at all.
>> Um, but I have been looking for answers to some questions that you all have been asking around uh, the revolving fund of the recck department. Um, and that one I was just trying to see if there were any other things that we could potentially
cover in that account since there is a large excess balance in there. And from listening to you all and seeing what's written and stuff, I think there might be a confusion on which law we might be looking at since if we were under the
53D, uh, if there was a balance left over in there, we would over 10,000, we would have to transfer that into the general fund. But we're under the 53E and a half, which is a little bit more flexible on what we could potentially charge in that account. Uh since
Greenfield uh does fundraising throughout the year where they have their fireworks go through that account. Uh Mansfields is another one that kind of does that for community events. So thinking of like Junth or any of the
veterans things or the pride events, those are things that can definitely be covered in that account. Um and Chadam, Hartwick, and Wesley all have um beach operations or like water safety for
lifeguards and things like that that are covered in that account as well. Since the 53E and a half allows you to pay for full-time employees as long as you include all of their fringe benefits in that payment as well. So just want to
see if maybe we need to update our bylaws to be a little bit more flexible as like some of our other communities since there is a very large excess balance in there that could potentially help us in our uh revenue issues that we're having in the town. Um, but would
love to hear you guys talk about that in a future session. Thank you. >> Thank you. Additional comment, >> please. Um, good evening. My name is Tissia Vasilio. I'm a resident of Lewis Road,
town meeting member and a former the former chair of the board of assessors. Uh, I'd like my comments to be recorded in the meeting minutes verbatim, please. I'm here tonight to follow up on comments I made at the last select board meeting on April 15th. At that meeting,
I pointed out my concerns with the inconsistency this board has shown in applying discipline. I shared specific examples of inappropriate behavior in reference to document documented investigation. I just wanted to let you all know that I have formally requested an investigation into the matter I
shared so that there can be resolution in the hopes that we can all move on. Uh Mr. Gishman, I believe you were misled when all of this occurred and had we all had the opportunity to speak, it could have been cleared up. So, I'm hoping you'll see this as an opportunity to
apologize and save the town the trouble of following through with a formal investigation. Um, to the entire select board, tonight is your last meeting as this select board. Um, so you will all thank each other and talk about the good things you've done, the time you have given,
and the sacrifices you made for this town. Um, which is all I appreciate and great. Um, I know it's a lot of work. Uh, I hope you will also consider the harm that has come from some of your actions, not just to each other, but to the community as a whole. All of you have missteps, and my hope is that
you'll all take a moment to consider apologizing to each other. Um, and to to those that you've treated with less respect than they deserved. Um, as well as all the members of this community because what this town needs right now is to turn over a new leaf and start
fresh. um we need to come together and we need our leaders to get us there. Uh so thank you for your time and your service to this community. Thank you. Any additional comments online or in
person? All right, I will read. Um this is an email from Tom Burke. I'm writing as a Swampscott parent resident and someone who grew up here and benefited firsthand from the town's public schools. I
strongly support the proposal 3.25% increase to the school's budget. To me, public education is one of the clearest signals of what kind of community we want to be a strong vibrant town. They shape kids, strengthen community pride, and give families a reason to stay, invest, and build their lives here. I
now have two young children, ages 10 and eight, and it's deeply important to me that they receive a strong public education in Swampscott. I also believe schools should offer more than academics alone. Extracurriculars matter. They build confidence, connection, and pride in the town. And I would love to see opportunities continue to grow,
including things like bringing hockey back to Swampscott High School. Excuse me. From what has been shared publicly, school costs are being driven largely by compensation and core student supports, not extras. That is exactly why I believe this increase is both reasonable and important. I want you to
hear from a younger parent in town who cares deeply about this community and believes investing in our school is investing in Swampscott's future. Thank you for your time and consideration. And if you have any questions, he's happy to speak with anyone directly. Sincerely, Tom Burke. All right, we will move from public
comment to new and old business. Um, we will start with the discussion and possible vote on the residential parking at Cedar Hill. I can start and um we have a couple folks from the police department here as well because they've been instrumental in helping us um try to figure out a
solution. We've gotten a number of emails and been contacted related relating to the lack of available parking for residents on Cedar Hill Terrace um primarily driven by some of the commercial activity in the area. We believe uh and we see an opportunity
here that needs you all to act in order to address to perhaps um add a couple of no parking spaces at the bottom of the hill and then also to make uh resident only. And so if I could just share my screen real quick, I can share a image
that we have. So, as you can see see in this photo Cedar Hill Terrace where it intersects with Humphrey. Uh what we are suggesting um is to add no parking in this red area uh down at the bottom. I believe on the
right side it's seasonally uh limited right now as it is. And then also from um a little further up the hill here from the garage up to the corner with Bay V also add no parking on that side as well in order to allow traffic to have clear
line of sight and also to sort of control and limit how many folks are parking in the area. This dark blue line along the residential side of Cedar Hill Terrace would become resident only and would also allow for those residents to each have a um a visitor parking pass as well that would be issued at the same
time as their resident parking so that you know anytime someone has something going on they they would still have access to to parking in the area. This is a change that we talked through and I'm happy to let the the chief um speak if you would like to, but we talked through a couple of different options
trying to understand what might work best. Uh and this seemed like the option that would preserve parking for the residents of the area, but also make sure that uh the commercial activity in the area to not make it difficult for them to find parking at any point throughout the day. Um but you know, preserve their opportunity not only for
guests, but for themselves to to have parking on the street. So, I'm not sure if you have anything that either of you would like to add and uh to the conversation or if you want to open it up to any questions that the board may have. >> Willing to open up to questions. What we've noticed though, I just as a
historical perspective, the residents on Cedar Hill Terrace often from what we've heard because there's only been two calls that we've received since 20 uh 2025 uh from the residents about the parking, but it it seems that
maybe they're not calling us every time that somebody is parking in front of the residents. So uh we feel that this way this might be the best way to uh allow the residents to have the parking as well as uh ensure that there's no parking from from Humphrey to about uh
the opening uh the e entrance of four seasons. Um that'll give a line of sight uh for for everybody. The roadway itself on Cedar Hill Terrace is about 25 ft uh long. So, it would allow still uh
vehicles to get through. It's tight just like uh just like our entire town. Uh it's very uh condensed and congested, but it would still allow um access through that roadway. So, we feel like this might be the the best way to mitigate
the residents. Uh people what we've heard is um people from the dentist office are often parking on Cedar Hill Terrace who are uh visiting the dentist office just south of on Humphrey
um as well as um um you know the the the maybe parking the immediate parking uh by Four Seasons and the the businesses there. So happy to take any questions. Joe, uh, Captain Cable here has a very good
historical perspective on all the issues there. U, but that basically sums it up. Um, unless there's anything else that you might add for >> No, I think it's been summed up. >> Okay. >> Any questions? >> Yeah, just just a few questions. Totally
understand. Um, the uh the sight lines right along Humphrey Street. Uh, so is the fact that there's no parking on the south side of Cedar Hill Terrace, is that just a function of the width of the street? So you you the street could not could not handle
>> dual parking. >> That's correct. We were concerned that the sight line turning off on Bay View the top was a concern for pedestrians and then the uh the road narrows down two cars. So it basically becomes a one lane.
>> Got it. Okay. It's a terrible spot if you're trying to turn coming down the hill to get visibility onto >> Humphrey. >> Yeah, it's it's tough. It's terrible. Would be even more difficult with cars. >> Yes, sir. >> And then how many how many park how many
one-hour parking spots are there approximately >> would there be in this proposed plan? Five, six? >> Yeah, I would I would estimate that you could get about um six cars in that space when I counted over there actually. Okay.
Is this the standard amount of uh setback or whatever we have when we talking about the Humphrey Street side of things that that much no parking for visibility issues? >> So the standard is uh 20 ft. U there's
an interesting problem there where the uh the driveway to Four Seasons is up past there and they will park blocking their own driveway. So we can't enforce it but it impacts the sight lines. So we on that graph have shown it going back to about the first poll. It's a little further than 20 ft.
>> What's the parking fine for no parking and for the one hour parking? >> Off the top of my head, I believe it's $75. >> That was thanks to us earlier. >> I was going to say, are you looking at me? because I did get a ticket this year
for parking in a uh in a >> beach area. >> Nope. Um snow band. The snow band started at 11 and I was at I was at church, guys, and I got a ticket. That's true. True story. Um but I think it was $75. So I corroborate
>> that story. >> Okay. So the parking so the parking fines would just be in line with everything with everything else each. So it's all uniform. >> Absolutely. Okay. So there seems to So one question or one thing that constantly comes up whenever I have
office hours or when we're talking to neighbors is the lack of enforcement on Humphrey Street and how cars are parked there for all ends of time. Would you mind sending us the select board a summary of how
many parking tickets were written on Humphrey Street in the month of April? Just give us 30 days. And what will be the process as far as enforcing? Do people have to call or will this be
enforced on a regular patrol? >> Yes and yes. So yes, when people call, we respond to any parking violations. Uh but the officers also proactively when we're not engaging in calls for service will conduct parking enforcement.
>> Right. That's great. So, if you could send us send the board, you know, like the last 30 days of how many parking tickets were written on Humphrey Street, I think that would be pretty interesting. >> Do you have exactly where from or just the entire length of Hump Humphrey Street?
>> You could pick Mission on the Bay to >> to Four Seasons. >> Okay. I have to say it I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but you know, if you look at the picture that you have kind of go looking down Cedar Hill. Um, and
it shows, you know, very clearly the cars parked on both sides. There's actually plenty of room there. >> It looks like because the people on the residential side, you know, they've got room to actually be off the street. Um,
so I'm just, you know, we have a parking issue in this town and I just, you know, I get it. We don't want to cause safety issues, but on the other hand, I don't think we need to take parking spots offline for no reason either. So, um, you see, you guys see the picture I'm referring to,
>> but maybe I'm missing something. >> Yeah, I took that those pictures. Um, so what you have is the cars are parked up on the sidewalk to try and create room, forcing the pedestrians out into the street. So, we want to be able to correct that and have cars parked on the street and keep the sidewalk open. the
uh black car and all the cars on the uh wooded side of the street are blocking the sidewalk in that picture. >> So, I was missing something. That's what you're nicely saying, Captain Key. Thank you. >> So, I have to assume that most of the folks who are parking in this 1hour
parking uh well, what will be 1-hour parking are somehow either related to the dentist or four seasons. So, if we could ensure that they are not blocking the pedestrian um walkway there, that would be great, too, because I assume they'll be repeat parkers in that area.
It's convenient for them to their establishments. Um >> so, we need to vote on this. >> Uh yes. >> Yes, we do need to generally we introduce something and then we vote on it the second time. My only concern
about voting on it right now is if people from this neighborhood wanted to come out or the dentist office or whoever um you know I just that's generally what we do. We introduce it and then vote a second time. I just want to make sure people have the opportunity to come out
and say it's a good idea, bad idea. >> I mean I like it. It's a really good idea and I'm in support of this. >> I just want to make sure people have a fair shot. >> Yeah, I hear you. I think um this was a call to action by the neighborhood um
which instigated it. But I guess if people want to come out and say they're anti it, then we haven't allowed for such a thing. So we can >> add it to the next agenda. >> Add it to a vote >> for a vote. >> Do you guys want to voice your opinions
now? That way we can make sure they're emboldened if we choose. >> I I I would refrain because I want to make sure that we have plenty of opportunity for people to fully express themselves. So I'm wouldn't want to get out in front of that. >> David, >> same. >> Same. All right. Well, guess we'll leave
it for another day then. Um, moving on to discussion, possible vote. Thank you both very much for coming. um discussion possible vote in first reading of the proposed bylaw regarding the inspection of sewer lateral at the
time of sale or transfer. Um as we discussed earlier, we have uh the chair of the water and sewer infrastructure advisory committee and the vice chair. Um and they'll do a little presentation for us and then we can get into it.
>> Oh, Kelly, hold on one second. You're talking and your box is lit up, but we can't hear you. So, Joe's gonna help us figure that out. One second, please. >> She's not muted. Um, I can see that she's talking and her box turns blue,
but can you try now, Kelly? >> Hello. >> Yes, we hear you loud and clear now. Thank you. >> All right. Great. You can see the slides. Okay. Yep. >> Yes. All right, great. Well, thanks for having us and um Brian Drummond is there
in person as well. Um so we wanted to share I think folks um select board have a copy of the proposed bylaw just um also included in the warrant for town meeting and the proposed bylaw is called inspection of sewer lateral at the time
of sale or transfer. So, we just wanted to kind of give an overview of um that bylaw. And just by way of um history and recalling how we got here, this same bylaw was included in um the warrant
last year, but the in the copying process, it was missing a handful of pages that then precipitated a number of comments related to missing information. um largely not entirely but largely to do with the missing pages. So since that
time so ultimately this was not voted on at the last town meeting as a result of that um those uh omitted pages. So in the meantime we did receive comments um from a couple of folks um between then and now. And so the revised draft that
went to KP Law that that you should have a copy of that we'll we'll run through here um reflects reflects relatively minor edits to what was proposed last year. Nothing sub super substantial but little tweaks here and there to um
address comments that were received and and then I guess one giant step backward is the reason why this bylaw is being proposed. As we all know, there's been a lot of efforts underway over the past number of years to address um MS4
and um um infrastructure, storm water infrastructure issues that are of course related to um issues with the beach and bacteria on the beaches. And so one of when when this committee, the water and sewer committee was initially created a couple of years ago, one of the first
things that the committee looked at um was what peer communities are doing in and and this type of a bylaw was one tool in the tool box that other peer communities were using to try to um get
at that issue and prevent um prevent leaking laterals or other for um illicit discharges that were being discharged through laterals um from to kind of catch that at at the sale of properties to try to minimize that that
type of inflow and and infiltration. Okay. So um the purpose is really to prevent illegal connections some pumps, roof drains, groundwater to the sewer system and to reduce infiltration in inflow and
protect the sewer system capacity and subsequent treatment costs. The bylaw requires the inspection of sewer laterals when property connected to the town's sanitary sewer system is sold or transferred. And this this approach um reflects standard mass D and title 15
policy approaches. And I'm sure you've seen this figure before, but just is a kind of pictorial demonstrating some of the um types of issues with laterals that we're trying to um identify at the
sale of property so that we can remedy them before the transaction or or within six months of the transaction going through. The key requirements are the inspection required to transfer. Prior to transferring the property, the seller
must apply to the Department of Public Works for an inspection and obtain either a certificate of compliance or non-compliance. The certificate is valid for two years from the date of issuance. And in terms of timing, the inspections must occur at least 9 months prior to the transfer. If
weather prevents the inspection, it must be completed as soon as feasible, but no later than 6 months after the transfer, and sellers must notify buyers in writing of these inspection requirements. The application process involves the
seller submitting an application to the DPW and paying a non-refundable inspection fee. By applying, the property owner grants the town permission to enter the property for inspection during reasonable hours, and the DPW must issue a compliance or non-compliance certificate within 14
days of inspection or approval is deemed granted if access was provided um and no action was taken. So, in terms of specifically what is being inspected, the town will inspect the sewer lateral to ensure no illegal
connections exist. Examples include roof drains, sump pumps, and downspouts. Um, inspection will ensure that there are no defects existing in the sewer lateral like cracks, breaks, or leaks that would allow groundwater infiltration or sewage leakage. And
inspection methods um may include CCTV inspections of the lateral and depending on the circumstances, visual inspections, smoke testing, or die testing. Uh in terms of non-compliance inspections and corrections, if
violations are found, the DPW issues a certificate of non-compliance identifying the needed corrective actions. The property owner must make the required repairs and request reinspection and all violations must be corrected within 6 months of property transfer.
Reinsspections may incur additional fees, fees, penalty, and enforcement. The application inspection fees are to be set by DPW. Violations may result in fines of up to $300 per day per
violation until resolved and failure to inspect, correct, and prevent illegal discharges is prohibited. We did receive uh only one comment from KP Law, which is um presented above. The
penalty section could include a noncriminal disposition section if the town wishes would give the town the ability to issue tickets for violations. Um so we could if folks are in agreement um we could add to section 8 um the
provision at the bottom of the slide the provisions of this bylaw may be enforced by noncriminal disposition in accordance with the provisions of mass general law 40 section 21D. And that is the quick overview and so
we'll open it up to discussion. >> Well, thank you very much, Kelly. I actually um this prompted a bunch of questions for me actually. Um try to be super quick. First of all, you said that other towns have very very similar if
not identical bylaws. Correct. >> Correct. >> We do. Yeah. Mo I it's most similar to Danvers, but we did also look at um Marblehead, Salem, and others. >> Okay. And is there I mean this sounds
like I have no how many how many I don't know how many sales happen in Swamp Scott every year? Like how many what's the what's the burden of this on town staff to be is it town staff that's doing this? DPW is actually going out and checking this.
>> Do we have any idea what The burden is >> in terms of hours. No, we can calculate that though in advance of town meeting. It's been discussed as part of the ongoing discussion. >> You mean do the video and stuff like that? >> Yeah. Whatever needs to be done or >> they don't TPW doesn't do the video. >> Inspect inspection.
>> Inspection companyw. >> Okay. They would have to pay an inspection company. >> They're going to pay because there's a non-refundable inspection fee. >> Okay. >> And then there will be a review that needs to be done on the town side of whatever results come back. Mhm. >> So, what are the what are the costs to
the to the home buyer? >> So, I don't have the number for you for what the smoke or video would cost. I can again absolutely get that in advance town meeting. So, it will become part of the presentation. Uh what we can anticipate it would be. It would not be something that we would have entered into a contract in advance of anything
passing. So, we could give sort of a best estimate based on uh talking to folks that provide the service. And I don't know, Brian or Kelly, if you have any color to add to that as well. >> I think it generally speaking, and I suppose it can vary depending on the, you know, length of the lateral and the,
you know, specifics, but in general, I think it's about $500 for a CCTV inspection of a sewer lateral. I suppose it could go up to 800, but it's pretty run-of-the-mill in the $500 ballpark. >> Okay. And can you would we be able to bring up
that uh that diagram because I thought that was uh that was very helpful and useful. >> And can you just show us where the homeowner's responsibility is or show us and members of the public uh where the homeowner's responsibility is versus where the town's responsibility ends? I
think that'll be helpful. >> Yep. And it it's really from the house to the middle of the street to to the to where this the sewer main is >> is the homeowner's responsibility. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Right.
>> What is the plan for public hearings and getting this information out to residents? >> We would be able to schedule p public meetings with water advisory committee. It's something Kelly and I spoke about a little earlier today. uh that could be
both virtual and or in person. I know they did one last year. It was um the feedback was comprehensive, but it was lightly attended. So, it might be something where a virtual meeting is a little easier for everyone to to figure out this time. Um but that would be the
main opportunity with which to to gain feedback. I know that some of the folks that provided feedback at the public meeting last year have also participated in water sewer advisory committee meetings uh in order to incorporate that feedback now as opposed to waiting until public meetings in the future.
>> Yeah, I think it's important to remember this is not a new concept we're trying to roll out. It's a version of a concept that we tried to roll out last year and we have been talking about really for 18 months probably at this point if not longer. Um so absolutely we should hold
a open public hearing so folks can have thoughts and feelings about it. >> Um but as far as the fees are concerned the fees I my opinion is the fees should not be listed in here because then we'd have to amend them every time and like
it's got to just be like we agree not we agree to cover cost of the testing and the administration of the you know like the subject matter surrounding it but like within I mean I think it makes sense to put a fee in this. >> Yeah. No, I think it it it's fair
feedback to make sure that the presentation whether done by me water advisory committee members whomever that we include where we are right now with an estimated cost so that people understand that >> and also highlight the fact that it is not pegged to today's cost if those costs go up in the future is something that we need to reflect.
>> Yeah. No, just for purposes of conversation, understanding that it can it can range widely uh depending on factors X, Y, and Z. I was just curious if there was a a general number, which seems like there is. >> I doubt the common homeowner knows the length of their lateral, so they
wouldn't know if they're looking at 500 or 800 or a thousand because how would we know? Um I also Kylie, if you would go to the last slide about the comment from KP. I want to touch a little bit on this. I do think KB's comment, thank you,
appreciate that. Um, is we should add the language in the on the below to it. It's it says it may be enforced, not shall be enforced. So, it just gives us more flexibility and option to do that if we if we decide we'd like to go through with um issuing tickets for the
violations. So, I I think it would be wise for us to do that. >> Can we go back to the context for that though? Well, I mean, if if if there are issues, people will get a certificate of non-compliance. So, they'll have to this kind of leads
into the other conversation. So, then they're going to be responsible for fixing it before sale, right? Because otherwise, they won't have the certificate for the sale. And yet, well, there's a couple things here. Um, because there's a provision in here if it's bad weather, then you can
actually sell it and you have till six months after basically to do it. Um, but then you'd be responsible, I guess, for fixing it. I >> So, I don't understand where the violation. So, if I'm sitting here with a lateral, I have no idea whether or not there's any issue with my lateral. So,
fine, you're going to inspect it before I sell it. >> But then you're also going to like find me for like not knowing that my lateral is broken. Like, am I missing something here? >> Well, you're gonna have >> I think Go ahead. Yes, >> you're missing something.
>> So, my understanding from watching your meetings is that people have the opportunity to fix the issue and if it's not able to be fixed, then the onus would be sitting on the new homeowner and what they generally find is the
homeowner will uh have money held back and put or put into escrow so that they have the opportunity to fix it. But I think the the fine is only really there in the event somebody isn't making an effort to fix it or to move forward.
>> Also, the certificate the certificate's good for two years. So, if you you know do start this process when you put your house on the market and you don't sell it for a period of time, like you still have a valid certificate for issuance. So, you're not waiting till the day of close to ask for this,
>> right? So if we already have the ability to So you're um next next slide, Kelly. Sorry. So in order to do this violation may result in fines up to $300 per day. Do we need that additional language
in order to do that? >> You mean the KP law language? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I think that And certainly any of the attorneys on the line could probably uh have a better explanation, but I think the gist of it is that this language
would make it easier. It would be basically a ticket. So it would make the process of collecting of assessing the $300 violation and collecting a little bit easier. >> I see. Okay. All right. That's what I was kind of
reacting to. It felt like a double whammy. Yeah. Okay. But that's not the point. All right. Okay. >> Yep. And I don't think the intent we did have some internal discussions with the with at our committee meetings um you know that were open to the public but um
there was discussion about um the $300 fine. And I don't think it's the intent of the town or anybody else to really um you know actually collect $300 per day every day. You know, I think if if people are working in good
faith and there and you know, there isn't a desire to make this a big money maker by having collecting $300 every day that passes it. It's just something to allow have some teeth to it for there to be some, you know, um penalty associated with
non-compliance. >> And when did that kick in the $300 if you didn't adhere after >> six months? You have six months to make the >> okay >> it has to be 6 months after the sale. So all violations must be corrected within six months of the property transfer.
>> And by leaving it as May as opposed to Shell to Katie's point, that does give a little opportunity for grace and understanding and trying if we know that it is moving towards completion even if we're getting to that six month or just beyond leaves a little bit of interpretation that would allow the town
to work with a homeowner. >> And then it puts you in a position of playing favorites basically whether or not you enforce it. objective enforcement. >> It's one way to look at it. >> It does. >> Is the suggestion become shallow?
>> Well, I think it's either we we actually impose a fine and enforce it or we don't say anything about it because the wishy-washiness in the middle I think gets us into trouble. >> Well, this is just the ticket, not the fine. So, the fine language is 8A. So
the fine language is clear and complete. So it does say there's civil collection proceedings in the amount not to succeed not to exceed sorry $300 for each violation each day that the violation continues. Uh they sh it shall be
considered a separate violation. So I think that's pretty clear, >> right? >> But the the other the piece of whether or not we issue a ticket and then start to collect said funds is the May. So I guess doesn't matter.
>> This is like the difference between sending an invoice versus a ticket. >> Okay. >> Thank you, KP. >> I mean, it's difficult to say, you know, we're going to put it there, but we're not going to enforce it, right? or we're going to imply that we're not going to
enforce it or it's really not meant to be that. You know, that that's the kind of stuff that is really kind of it doesn't incentivize people to actually fix something, right? If they know that we're really not going to do what we say we're going to do, right?
That's my >> Right. But you you're catching this. I mean, >> the fee is a shale, >> right? >> As it is in here already, right? That's no doubt. >> Right. >> Right. >> Y >> and then Yeah. I guess
>> then your point is like why even add this language just muddies the waters in a way instead of helping >> it leaves it open for interpretation right by whoever the TA is at the time or whoever. I mean I don't know who would enforce it. Would it be the TA? Would it be >> DPW? Probably the DPW right?
>> I believe it would be DPW. >> I can confirm that though. Yeah. >> I guess I guess what we're missing is >> why is it that difficult to just assess the fee period? >> Yeah. >> Like why are we adding this extra language about this You know, you may do something as a ticket as opposed
to just doing the fee. >> Yeah. >> Like is that something so cumbersome to just do the fee >> automatic? >> Well, I think you need a mechanism to trigger the fee. So you need some condition in there, right, to assess a penalty. So there's a fee related to inspection, right?
>> Yeah. and they pay that up front and then the inspection fails. Brian, stop me at any time if I'm wrong. The inspection fails. Now they have six months to correct it. >> Likely they're the papers have passed and they've funded through escrow potentially what they suppose the fix is
going to be. And now they have a new person in their home, right? New owner and new owner is working to get that accomplished. And if something for example outside of new owners ability or control occurs to your point like then we have a
mechanism to try to entice old homeowner to but we're we're really penalizing the new homeowner right we're not penalizing the old homeowner. >> So just so a question then why wouldn't we approach this the way we would um a water lean right when someone sells their property and you have to get a
certificate from the water department that says your water bill is paid. Why wouldn't we approach this the same way? It has to be done before the sale. Period. Right? You can't sell it and then you know six months later we'll give you No, you need this documentation. You need this certificate
to sell your property, right? Is that was that a consideration or is that an option or is that is it you know >> it was a consideration. There was thought about there was a lot of discussion about not stopping the sale
of homes for you all kinds of reasons. It really is to just get to get these repairs to be made and but not there. We didn't want a ripple effect of of um
creating a real estate, you know, >> burden >> crisis of people not being able to close on their houses depending, you know, the markets can be different and and the timing of things can be very compressed depending on whether the market is really hot and all that. We didn't want to get into the complexities of actually
slowing down and stopping sales as a result. If someone has a septic system, right, on in a Southshore town, you're required to get a title nine or title five inspection so that you can sell your property, right? That's a condition if
you have a septic system, right? I kind of see this as the same or or similar. And while we don't want to hold up a sale, we will hold up a sale if you haven't paid your water bill, right? And there's an outstanding lean. So, I don't kind of see the difference here. So, one
is a it's a cost being borne by the town because if they don't pay for the water, every other rateayer is paying for it, >> right? >> We're talking about improvements to private property that we're requiring of them. And so, like a title five, you can sell a home with a failed Title 5, but it's out in the open that it's failed
and it needs to be addressed. >> But, can you get a loan when you actually do that? >> Part of it is normally to get a D loan that's at 0%. like right you know like there are deep >> most lenders aren't going to give you one if you fail a title >> but the there are opportunities to get funding from the state or to do it as
part of the sale which is title 5 was created at the time of transfer because that's the the time at which there's enough money moving between the current homeowner and the future homeowner to cover that cost >> right >> um >> I just don't see how we have any recourse even with the six-month post timeline. >> Yep.
>> Like we're setting ourselves up to fail. I I I personally just think it should it would behoove this town to have really to put a hold on the sale until it's fixed. >> Well, one question on that, Danielle. There was something earlier about the
weather. Is it is it like very difficult to do these in any way like when it's like zero degrees out for or whatever 10 degrees for a month if that ever happens. Well, the repair might be difficult, >> I guess, because you're going to uproot the >> the front yard or whatever to get to
your lateral to replace it. So, yeah, if you have 10 feet of snow on your ground or whatever, and you have to move all that. And so, I would assume that yes, you would have an issue timing repair. >> Is that true, Kelly Brian? >> Yeah, I mean, I think the CCTV can be
done in in any isn't really weather dependent, but the repair could be. >> Yeah. I also don't know the sorry Doug I just don't know the universe. I don't have a good concept of the universe of like >> number one how many sales occur. So what are we talking what's the pool we're
talking about? Number two what we project the lateral failure to be. So like are we really talking about >> five sites a year on average? Are we talking about 50 sites a year on average? Like I just don't have a concept of it. So, it's hard for me to say we need more uh guard rails or it's
okay that we're a little bit less with the guard rails and let's like take a year, see how it plays out, monitor it, and then consider coming back. I just don't know. My understanding from listening to one of your meetings when you were discussing this was to just
give as much flexibility to being able to have this repaired and not put a burden on the home buyer or the home seller and that this was your committee's recommendation just to you know be able to achieve the goal of having the repair without putting a
burden on anybody. >> Well well somebody has to be on the burden of fixing it right >> so how how do we I mean we can't the town can't certainly bear that burden and that's what's happening. So, >> well, but I I think we're all mixing here. This is the way I I'm not bothered by giving the six months because of the
weather thing. >> Um, but I would just leave off the KP comment and this just says >> if you got six months, you knew about it before you have to know about it before you sell. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Then you get six months to fix it. I
think that seems like plenty reasonable time to fix it, right? And so then if you don't do it, you >> it's a fee. >> It's far more likely that you will escrow greater than the repair. So the the seller doesn't want to keep that money tied up in escrow. They want to fix it and get their money back and move
on. >> They want to be done with it. I don't think I think there is still an incentive to it >> um for them to do the work. I don't think we've lost they've lost all the leverage there. So just on sales it's about somewhere between 200 and 260 annually >> a year. >> Yeah.
>> A year. Okay. >> So maybe 10% would run into this. I mean I don't know. I'm throwing that figure out there. >> Yeah. >> Of saying how you know faulty lateral >> from all your lateral work, >> right? From me digging down under the manholes. I mean I don't know. Does anyone have a better statistic they can
throw up? >> We don't know how. >> It would be great if it was even less. I guess we should I mean obviously I'd love to come back and understand after we pass this how how many have actually failed and like what the >> do we even know that would we even know if >> we should from our work right Gino
should know this how many >> maybe there's an estimate >> so the the work that Gino is doing is in a very defined universe of it's not town wide >> any laterals that cross >> it's laterals across the sewer in Stacy's Brook area so it's not >> small subset I mean we have no idea
>> so I think we might be better served by just reaching out to Denver, Salem, places, Marblehead, places that are doing it and just say what is what is a failure rate look like. >> Yeah, that's >> that can be something to the point David raised earlier that can be part of the presentation at town meeting just so people have context and understand if
we're selling 250 homes in a year, the towns that have it nearby with similar, you know, sort of housing stock uh have a failure rate of x% each year. That's something that we could just do a little research on. Can you just go back to the KP law
thing? I just I'm not really seeing why the KP law thing is a big deal. >> Because it introduces ambiguity, >> right? >> Because it says the provisions of the bylaw may be enforced by noncriminal disposition rather than saying shall be or just not saying anything at all
>> or will be >> or >> Yeah. will or shall. Yeah. Either >> and even though I I don't think that actually is intended to take away the shall I think it's only saying that you may enforce it through a different mechanism. Right? That's all it's saying.
>> But I still feel like >> so I will just highlight like health and building inspector are they have discretionary language in a lot of cases. So that like you know >> discretion like to call it a ticket or >> they say may versus shall
>> but about assessing the fee or the way you assess the fee because this is only about the way you assess it. I guess I'm I'm failing to see a significant distin like for me if you're talking about something like the building inspector and signage on Humphrey Street,
>> he could be writing tickets every day or he could be assessing fines rather every day for signs that are outside the bylaws and outside what we allow, >> right? his preference and I think this is appropriate when you talk about building in health in not health
inspections in terms of safety but health inspections broadly like there's an opportunity to say we want you to cure this you're outside compliance we're not going to start assessing a fee of $250 every day for a you know neon sign that shouldn't be in the window
>> understood Nick but I think if with all due respect I think you're confusing the issue because if what we're saying is that the bylaw as it's proposed without KP's comment is a shale period. And this
doesn't change the shell. This only adds an option about the way you actually assess the fee, not whether or not you're going to do it. I do understand that. So, >> am I understanding incorrectly then or
>> No, I I just I wanted to introduce the idea because the when I originally said the mayor versus Shell, the feedback was you're leaving it up to discretion of town employees. I'm highlighting that that exists in other places in town. >> Right. >> That's all I'm doing. >> Okay. But that would be a different
conversation about introducing discretion to actually assess the fee >> part of the fee. >> Yeah. into >> right >> 8A >> right I as best I understand it >> but I think I think there's a there should be a distinction between
something that is polluting um polluting our waterways and a sign that is against zoning totally those two things >> I think there's a difference between an education as far as like a person who's going to maintain a business and understanding what code what code
violations look like and how we assess them and a change in control of a house whose lateral is, you know, leaking into I mean hopefully >> King's Beach. >> Yeah. >> Or whatever >> or into our sewers. All right. So, yes, I agree though,
Nick, that we need whatever presentation happens at town meeting if this successful is needs to include the context >> should include some um costs. Projections to the homeowner
should include it would be great if we had some stats like David provided like how many um property sales are occurring in the year and some other towns who have similar bylaws. Salem uh Marblehead Dambers how
many failures they're having in in a year based on their property sale numbers for a percentage of failure. >> Okay. Well, what is our recommendation going to be then on this on this line with KP law? >> I'm a no.
>> You don't want to you don't want to put it in >> because it's leaves too much ambiguity ambiguity there. >> Sam, >> I don't I think we could always add this section to the bylaw if we >> right. That's >> it's not required to take it out
>> for the bylaw. So >> if KP law comes back and says upon listening to our conversation that it is required, we should know immediately. >> Is it your opinion that we should leave it in? >> I my recommendation that we leave it up.
>> I think it's something that they had highlighted for discussion among the board. So I'm happy to follow wherever you all land on this. the the work that the water sewer advisory committee has done over a long period has created what is before us. They offered an alternative that could be added. I don't
think it is something that necessarily is up to me. It was a opportunity that Tom wanted to highlight for us and we're more than welcome to take or dismiss any of their advice. >> Right. um it doesn't really you know materially change the idea that this is
a priority that people share and finding the best way to do it that can get a recommendation from the board and get town meeting to act I think is what's most important >> Kelly did you have any thoughts based on the feedback we just gave what you think about that last line
>> I don't really have feel super strong one way or the other I think the point is these things need to get inspected and they need to be repaired within six months how the mechanism for for assessing the penalty. I don't I don't feel strongly what the mechanism is.
>> Okay. What about you? >> Well, I I was going to say if I'm doing performance appraisals of KP Law, I'd say putting could be in a you know opinion to us non- lawyers and non-real estate people doesn't isn't helpful, you
know, and even with that could have explained because of this reason or because of that reason and and it's it's just I think I think you can leave it as it is. It's a fine. It's clear. And if we must change it down the road, we can
change that line. That's that's where I'm parked. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So I guess then >> we will be discussing this when we get to the warrant section anyway. >> Okay. So we will get
>> So you can you'll have an opportunity. >> We can punt for 10 minutes. >> Yeah. I do want to make a note >> doesn't isn't helpful, you know. Even with that >> we're on delay >> couldn't explain to me because of this reason we're on delay and it's
>> I think I think you can leave it as it is a fine it's already said those things we've traveled back and >> we must change it down the road we can change that language from getting >> I think it was extremely well said it was worth just wanted to hear it twice
>> yes just so we can bleep you out if you get rowdy um Uh yeah, we will talk about it again when it comes up in the warrant, but the appendix reference is C, not E. >> Okay. >> So, we will move on. We'll vote on it with the Oh, sorry. Yes.
>> I was I was going to ask that question as far as >> at some point you guys have to vote on it because that would be >> Yeah, we'll vote on it when we vote on the warrant and then we'll we'll decide like uh who will speak on it? >> Included in the warrant at this point. >> That's what >> it is included in the warrant at this
point and we'll make a recommendation. Okay. >> From the select board as it exists in the warrant when we get to the warrant in um discussion item number four. >> So I guess just to we need Kelly and Brian to be waiting around here or is there some
>> You want to take a straw poll so they feel comfortable about leaving? >> Yeah, I mean if there's any other questions on that I I suppose that would be helpful to them I would think. >> Okay. >> I mean is there a reason why we can't >> vote on it now? I >> guess. Yeah. Do you want to make a motion, Dad?
>> I feel bad now that David's out of the room. >> I know. Do you want to wait till he gets back? >> Sure. >> No pressure, David. >> Whatever you want to do. >> We could also take the warrant out of order if you want so that we can move them. >> Sure. We can take on the warrant next and then we can go straight to this
article. >> Soon as David's back, we'll jump to this. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Um, so we will That's a great suggestion. I think you will take the new business out of order. We will move
from the Hawthorne and lease approval to the discussion and vote of the annual town meeting warrant. Um we will skip apologies if you're following at home, but we will skip directly to article 10 so that Brian and Kelly could enjoy the rest of their evening or stay with us if
they so choose. Um which is the inspection of the sewer laterals at the time of sale. Um, so my comment stands about the appendix reference. Um, and then
Kelly and um, Ryan, somebody will just pop up and perhaps give a version of that very quick slideshow during town meeting. Right. >> I'll work with them on a presentation, >> right? >> That will highlight the information requested and anything else they want to share. Okay, perfect.
>> All right. So, >> well, I'm just gonna like make a little editorial comment here for a moment. Stalling for day or two, but no, no, no. Yeah, somewhat because of that. I just want to say thank you to Kelly and to Brian and to the whole water and sewer
uh infrastructure advisory committee. Um I know it is not necessarily always been a pleasurable experience. Um but we are ex I I'll speak for myself. I am very very grateful uh for all the work that you all have put into so many issues and
from everything from the somewhat mundane uh persevering on something like this uh to the much larger issues um that you're putting in endless hours uh it's really really appreciated uh by me
I think by a lot of people for a long time to come so I just wanted to take that chance to to thank Second that. >> Yep. I >> third >> echoing Doug's comments. Appreciate it very very much. >> All right, David, we moved on to the warrant so that um Brian and Kelly could
um leave us if they so choosed and we sc we skipped to article 10 right to that so we can vote on um the article. Uh so I will take a
motion to vote on article 10 of the sewer lateral at the time of sailor transfer as reflected in article appendix C warrant. >> Uh second >> second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> that's a 50. >> So that's just going to show us the
select board recommends 50, right? >> Yep. The select board recommends 50. I'm sure Patrick is already changing it. All right. So, as the town administrator stated, he'll work with you guys to get something presented which incorporates some of the
commentary we just gave. >> Um, >> thank you guys very very much for all your work. We appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. So, we'll go backwards in time to um the first article which is
for bills of prior fiscal years. >> The bills of prior fiscal year Oh, sorry, the second article because the first one's the reports of boards and committees. Yep. >> So, we have we have, excuse me, do we have a list of those boards and committees that are going to be presented? >> We've been looking at what's been done
in the past. I will work with the chair to make sure that we address all of them that may want to. uh you know watching the last couple of years it's been limited and so we want to make sure that we give anyone the opportunity but I you know Shannon and I have been watching past meetings and we'll work with the
chair this week to make sure >> is it time of the or the decision of the moderator >> I can also speak to >> whoever wins the moderator's race >> yes I think it's traditionally been the moderator who has coordinated in
conjunction with the town administrator So that's accurate. >> It is our it is our warrant. We've given the space and the moderator helps facilitate it. So whoever wins tomorrow will be able to help do that for us. >> Uh but I think everyone's typically very
cognizant of time. Sure. >> H we don't know yet. >> That go. >> Oh, go Ryan. Okay. Well, let's not get political here. >> Um approval on the bills of prior fiscal year. So we have parking ticket processing.
um medical duty medical claims and unemployment claims. Any commentary on that before we >> Anybody have any question? >> Does the second one does it have a dollar amount? Is >> it does? It says 36. >> No, look at your um print out.
>> I printed a new one to reflect the most uptoate information. >> Thank you for the page numbers. Appreciate that feedback. >> Thank them. It was all added last week. So, >> it's page two. Y >> can you just describe So
>> that was a claim from last year that just fell through the cracks or what what does that mean? >> Which bill are you referring to? >> The second one. >> Scripts. >> Yep. So those are injured on duty medical claims for firefighters and police officers that
have been obtained disability retirement due to an injury on duty. And it's specifically prescription drug costs that required by statute to fund for those individuals based on the service related disability. And um came to our attention that those have gone unpaid for a while. So that's
not one year's worth of claims. That's that's probably four years going back. Um they weren't being routed to the correct place and the company never followed up. Um so the benefits department has put a procedure in place so that those are being routed correctly
going forward. But that's why you see a large figure there. Larger. >> Okay. Okay. Any additional questions or I'll entertain a motion to uh support article two. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All right. That's where I go. Um, article three, the 2026 operating budget. Just speak a little bit to where >> I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
>> Yes. Could you speak a little bit to where Fincom left off with it? >> Can you >> I'll jump in. Yeah. Um, >> Fincom has not voted on this. They've >> they met last Thursday. Excuse me. >> They voted on an operating budget recommendation and a capital budget
recommendation. the other financial articles they're taking up this Thursday. Okay. Not opined. >> Okay. So, if vote to voted to support article three >> article three they have not discussed >> they haven't that's current budget.
>> Sorry. >> That's amendment. >> That's amendments. >> Oh, 26. I apologize. >> Well, we were rogue when we actually approved article two without >> without fcom. >> Without fam. Huh. I don't think we really >> bold of us.
>> It was bold of us because what are we going to do? Not pay our bills. That's not a great look. >> Um, okay. So, we we don't have to take up article two. If people want to wait for recommendation, they are meeting on Thursday. >> So, what is the nature? >> Then we would have to >> that that being said, the way that we're
going through this with the current membership is that we would affix electronic signatures. you would vote to a fix electronic signatures tonight because you are no longer board members after the election. >> Yeah. I >> So I guess that would be a
complicating factor in doing it in this in this way. >> Yeah. >> Well, what is the nature of the 2026 actual I mean we've got a list of numbers here, but these are all things moving basically. That's >> Yeah. So, I can highlight a few areas
that um require funding at at town meeting, a budget transfer. The police contract being one. Um that's been settled. So, there's $130,000 anticipated that we're going to plug into that budget. Um $20,000 towards uh
veterans benefits that we're obligated to pay out. Those are trending beyond what we budgeted this year. uh $57,000 towards principal and debt service and um $20,000 towards street lighting maintenance and $18,000 towards uh
interim town accountant services. So those are the areas that have been identified that require funding. And so we're netting out of areas where we have identified savings. So we're not using free cash at all to balance this year's budget. >> Balance in and out. >> This is just a live shuffle. It's a shuffle.
>> Yeah. We're basically drawing on the salary reserve. >> Yep. Salary reserve, healthcare, and some vacancy savings from partial year vacancies. >> And we have to we have to do this or why. >> So you need to vote on the budget
transfer for a collective bargaining agreement at town meeting. So it's why this article exists and we know about these other things. So I I think it's prudent to just do it all at once. >> Yep. >> Supportive. Okay. So maybe the motion might be to vote to support uh well we
could vote to support outright without waiting for fin. We could also vote to support conditioned upon fin support. So the only reason we would need to come back is if >> didn't support it. >> I think that's a good idea. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So moved. >> So the motion is to condition it upon
fin's correct >> review and approval. Doug has moved. >> Second. >> David seconded. All in favor? >> I. That's a 50. Okay. So now on 2027's operating budget where I thought we were before. Sorry.
Um income has opined on the 27 operating and capital. So there's no condition required here. >> Patrick maybe give it just a brief there's like 300,000 I saw reported or something movement or something like that.
>> Yes. So I updated this table. um based on where Fincom was at before they finalized their votes Thursday evening. So, there were a couple changes that they made at that meeting. I can highlight for you. Um they removed funding from uh the police
budget and the fire budget for recruitment and entrance exams and promotional exams because there's a consolidated budget amount in HR seemed duplicative. So, those were removed in the amount of $1,500 and $8,500. And
they also um we updated the state aid numbers to reflect the house budget on both revenue and expense. So, those are up to date. And um after long discussion, they recommended increasing the estimate on the cannabis excise tax to uh $261,000
from $200,000. So, those are the changes that they made that are not reflected in the the draft you have here. >> So, $60,000 bump in revenue. >> Yeah. >> $10,000 reduction in expense. So if you include the state aid and
>> without the state aid I was that separate but >> so I'll just summarize high level with all of that it's $174,000 increase to revenue 82 $82,500 decrease to expense and that'll get the
anticipated excess levy use uh down just below 1.5 million. Okay. >> What is the reasoning for the uh the addition the increase in revenue >> the cannabis? Yep. >> The cannabis. Yeah. So, we looked at it. Uh we looked at the trends, the
quarterly trends over the last four years, how things were coming in. Um and it the trend is up enough that every the committee felt that if we could justify the higher estimate. So, we used last year's actual as the baseline rather than the three-year average, which was
much lower because there's been an upward trend >> because revenue was high. Marian. here all night, guys. >> Nicely played, FL failen. All right. >> I'm going home. >> That was your mic drop.
>> Yep. >> I'm out. >> All right. So, given that recap, Patrick, thank you. Y >> um we uh fin voted to support. So the I think appropriate move here would be to
take a vote to support the 2027 operating budget as listed in the warrant article four. >> So move. >> Can I get a second? >> I'll give a second. But I just want >> you want to discuss something?
>> Yeah. A little bit more. >> So this chart we had last >> time the projection. >> Yeah. had the unused levy at one at >> I'm pausing here. Let's see. When it
shows unused levy, unused excess levy capacity for 2027. >> That's at the end of the year or beginning of the year. >> That's four. >> And that's for FY27. when we set our tax
rate for FY27, the number in parenthesis there, that's that's the remaining excess levy that gets us through the year. Yes. So going into 28, that's what we would have had >> going into 28. So that's that was at -2.6 million on here.
>> Yep. >> And didn't you just say 1.5? >> 1.5. So you may be looking at the iteration of that that is the original budget proposal before cuts, right? I thought this was the one from last meeting.
>> Adjust. >> Well, I know, but we didn't take out a million, but >> Well, that that the 1.5 is the use. So, remaining we would have 2 >> 2.9 almost >> 2.9 versus Yeah, that's what it is.
>> 2.6 and they improved it by 300,000. >> Yes, there it is. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. >> Patrick's so good with the maths. And the we're down to average tax bill. Do we know that number? >> Yep. So the proposal when it left you
was at 670. Average um single family home tax increase $670. Now we're at 617 as proposed. >> 17. >> That is exclusive of CPA.
What is CPA Doug >> Patrick? >> What it would be >> with CPA? >> So is that inclusive or exclusive of that? >> Exclusive. >> It's the change exclusive of the change in CPA. >> Oh, it's the change because CPI ex I mean CPA exists currently. So that's the
change. >> So be like another $9. >> Okay. Got it. Got it. >> Sure. So what's really important is that people understand that even though we are not this is not called an override,
we are actually doing an override without >> asking for permission and because we have uh unused levy. So, we had we used our unused levy last year. We're using unused levy this year
and we're probably going to have to use unused levy next year. Um, but I I just don't want people thinking, well, Marblehead has this override what and we do we are using unused levy and that's significant. It's the second year of deficit spending
to that point with more on the horizon. I think that's the >> cleanest way to describe it. >> Yeah. I mean, I I think we're benefiting, frankly, from all the hard work that's been done for many, many years, right? discipline that went in from prior select boards, prior town
administrators, prior finance committees, everybody, you know, really is kind of created this uh piggy bank basically that we're leveraging right now and we're in such so much better shape than so many other towns. Uh so, you know, a
lot of thanks and kudos to all of those folks that have created this bridge for us. Um, and I mean I'm I'm reassured by the fact that at least what I understood the finance committee to say is that they had scrubbed and scrubbed and they felt like this was as far as they
thought it was prudent to go at this point. Um, you know, you could always you could always cut more. I mean, we have not as far as I understand there's nothing in here cutting actually any individual position anywhere in the department. Is that correct? Roughly >> there are positions that existed. So
like public safety admin as an example used to be two it's now one. Um public health nurse it went from full-time to halftime but the impact is not on an individual that's currently employed but it is we have lowered the FTE count. >> Okay. From current to this budget proposal.
>> Correct. From FY26 to FY27. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, >> so are there other other revenue sources or other things that you want that you would like to mention? >> Uh, like you teed it right up for him. David, did you guys practice?
No, but um I don't think it's going to solve anything right now, but we do keep coming around to this parking thing and it would be, you know, as much as it's useful for me to say it now, again, it's not going to I don't think there's any way that it's really going to lead to anything for
this for 2027's budget, >> but what do we do to uh make that a live determined effort to I think there was a very old parking study like in 2018 and
probably needs to be refreshed, but what do we do to not only for revenue but also for just good healthy a little bit to Mary Ellen's point earlier about tickets and you know making sure that we've got good management of that corridor. We've constantly have issues
with parking and uh bottlenecks and everything on Humphrey. We want all this commercial development, but we've got to we've got to learn how to manage it. You know, I know we're a town, but there's an element here that we have. It's kind of like a city, especially on Humphrey Street, that we need to think about how
that gets managed. And it's nice that I'm just saying it now and leaving it for someone else to figure out, but no. >> Uh, I'll be the bad guy if that helps. >> You want to start a parking committee, Doug, that you'd like to chair? >> No. You've you've mentioned it before. I'm meeting with Marzy and Ruben to
discuss it both on the enforcement side and then looking at other communities and what they've done. One of the things that Marcy and I discussed, we had a discussion without the sort of enforcement side is that she really wants to engage some of the business owners that were reaching out to us a little earlier this year on Humphrey
Street so that it is not something that we just say we think this is a great idea >> and don't get their feedback first. So we wanted to include them earlier. Uh so that's an initial step. It's also understanding costs around the parking podiums because it would be pay and display or like completely web- based
depending on what solution we go with. And then thinking about it from a budgeting standpoint, I think what we would probably end up doing is like a revolving account where we're paying for some capital for say the police if they're doing enforcement uh out of that as opposed to balancing or using it
towards the operating budget because we certainly in the first year but even over time there may be fluctuations in what we can anticipate in income for that based on economic conditions that are far beyond our control. So we would try to focus it as a way to take some of the pressure off other capital expense
um in support of that enforcement both there and to the discussion around Cedar Hill. It would be enforcement townwide on resident parking and other things. It wouldn't be that we only ask for enforcement along that corridor between these two streets. It would be how can we make this something that, you know, the revenue from paying for parking goes
to a place that we can use it and also encourages or allows for enforcement townwide uh to to help with that circulation and make sure that folks in neighborhoods where resident parking is an issue are also, you know, sort of addressed and supported as well. >> Yeah. And I I mean I I think we can
certainly, you know, while this won't impact the the fiscal year 27 budget, having these conversations now teed up over the course of the next 3, six, nine months can get us ready for that next cycle whereby, you know, there may be the opportunity for the town to to bring
in, you know, some additional revenue and utilizing that parking study, which, you know, was from 2018. you know, previous um business owners on the street had mentioned, you know, a lot of the same things that we're all seeing, which is, you know, the fact that Humphrey Street sometimes is used
for long-term parking. Those spaces don't open up. We've heard from Miss Tapper, uh, who, you know, with the 350 Bakery, uh, who was who was mentioning that as well, there was just no parking, um, because of snow and, you know, and and even with available spaces, it was
it was really difficult. So, you know, we certainly want to hear from our from our local businesses. Um, but I believe we've already heard from them uh in previous iterations. So, I think it's just updating that information. Now, there are some new businesses. Now, there are some, you know, potentially
some new challenges, too. Um, there's going to be a hotel. Uh, there's going to be redevelopment, uh, you know, at the Hawthorne site. So, I think um just making sure we're having these discussions um townwide and really and really doing it in a in a comprehensive manner is is only going to help uh you
know benefit Humphrey Street Quarter and and the town and the region uh moving forward and I think we can generate some some revenue and and help our local businesses too. >> Do you remember what the estimates were when you looked at it? I think it was it was it was a six figure amount was probably1
150 to $250,000 depending on which estimates you used whether it's six days or seven days how many hours u the models I I've circulated I can recirculate >> did that take into account the capital investment though >> it was the capital investment per marzy I believe was fairly low
>> okay >> um if it was if it was all web- based >> okay yeah I guess um two things one as a commentary to Doug's commentary that we're a town with a city problem. We need to start thinking like we live in a city and if you could walk there, you got to walk there. Like we don't have a million places to park. We don't have
parking garages because we don't want them. No. >> Um and so like you know >> I'm close enough that we walk down to dinner and we walk back and then we make sure that those spots are open for people who are not close enough. >> Um so we have to start thinking more
like that here in the community. We're only three square miles. There is we have a great walkability. We have a lot of um gray areas that can be pedestrian safe. So, we should continue to, you know, try to facilitate that and and
force that um as a solution. I just I am I'm not sold on parking being uh um paid parking being the right idea. I'm happy to look into it and very glad to see if that does end up being the case. But if we do, can we please get an app that a
surrounding town uses? because like we have like 10 parking apps going on between all the towns and we I mean I get that it's web based and you go with what's cheapest but it's like very annoying to have so many parking apps. Um just as a personal aside
>> it's the climate action folks that do that. They want to make it really difficult for people to drive and park so they have make very different ones for each >> dangerous you know. Just talking about parking. I brought this up with you before the manscior had offered the use.
He um a year ago, a little bit more than a year ago, he offered us to have the use of the parking lot behind um behind the church, behind the church over to the east side. Um and we have
parking in the front. We have an agreement with the church to use the parking in the front. And I think we really should look into that and see if it's still open because that will really help the um the businesses in that area, possibly some of the neighbors to get
some parking in that little spot. >> Yeah, people should also be parking at Hawthorn >> for now. >> For now. >> All right, I think we are on to our Did we vote? We vote. >> There was a second. >> Oh, there was a second. Now we have to vote. Okay. So, all in favor of
supporting article 4 of the budget as written in the warrant. >> I I >> I >> So, I'm a no. And I'm a no because I just can't support the budget with having close to half a million dollars sitting in a cushion account um with the
schools. And that is that's their term, not my term. But I do support the level of the budget. I just don't support cash sitting in account. So budget is one thing, but now being able to support the budget with that cash is where I have my
problem. >> Okay. Thank you, Marielen. >> Danielle, did you comment? I didn't hear you. You said you're Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> You were a yay. I didn't hear. >> No, I'm actually abstaining because I had asked for a certain piece of this to be broken out so that I didn't.
>> For anyone that doesn't know, my wife is a public school teacher >> at the middle school. So, I wanted the middle school salaries broken out of this so I could abstain from that piece. >> And so, therefore, I wouldn't have to vote on that and then I could go ahead and vote the overall budget. So, I'm going to abstain.
>> Okay. Thank you for clarity. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> So, it's a 311 and uh whoever speaks to this at town meeting can explain how we got there. Doug, are you offering? >> No, won't be there.
Article five. Um this is the appropriation for the CPC, the community preservation committee. Um for fiscal year 27, this has not been voted on by fin. >> I believe that is correct, right? This is the
>> has not. >> Okay. >> So we would do this one contingent as well. >> But does FINCOM really have any say as to how these these funds are allocated? >> No. And this is extremely proforma um as >> just for everyone's elucidation I
suppose. Um the the administrative expenses are uh as suggested by the uh community preservation coalition the group that works with all the different uh community preservation communities across the state. So that's their
assessment of what should be set aside for administrative expenses. And then there's just the very standard 10% set aside for historic, for community housing, and for open space, which each of those amount to 88,750.
And then all the rest is basically reserved. The other 70 almost 70% uh for other uses TBD in the future as the community preservation committee works through its process. She's really kind of setting up sub accounts
>> um with the exp with the exception of the administrative expense. Nothing's being spent or recommended for any specific project right now. >> And that administrative expense is 5% of anticipated revenue. >> That's exactly what it looks like. Yes. >> Do you know what happens? And maybe
somebody else could speak to this at town meeting, but what happens if they don't spend the full expense? Does it roll into another account >> on admin? Yeah, >> I assume it if it rolls forward. Um I don't think that's a requirement that it's spent. It's just kind of set up as
an administr. So next year they only spend half of that. Well, then you wouldn't have to allocate as much. >> Okay. So it's not a requirement that 5% gets allocated. It's just the suggestion right now that we start the account at 5%. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. Thank you for the clarity. >> True. >> Okay. So, um, if there aren't any more
questions, I think that given that these are highly regulated and part of the C the what is it? Community preservation coalition recommendations and not really although money driven, not FinCom related, I feel comfortable with us taking a stance tonight if people
agreed. >> I would entertain a motion to uh approve article five. >> So moved. Second. All any more discussion? All in favor? >> I. Very good.
Um and so we don't all sound schmolzy at the end. I will again recognize Doug and David for the work on the CPA. And you know, this is just a small piece of it all coming to fruition. And then from this, we'll be able to actually allocate
allocate funds and see action taken. Um and you know, that will be in part large part due to the both of you. So, I really appreciate that. >> Well, it was a harmonious unanimous effort. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> All right. Moving on to article six, the
revolving fund. Amend the general bylaws for the revolving funds. Does anybody want to >> I have a question on this. Is 650 high enough for recreation with the amount of >> revenue that the new recreation director is bringing in?
So 650 was what we arrived at based on conversations between myself and the rec director and we got the FY26 limit. We came before you and got that increased through the end of this fiscal year. Um and we went before Fincom and they also affirmed that. So everyone was
comfortable with that level. Recreation's not seeking a higher limit at this time. If for some reason programming wise, revenue-wise, a higher limit was justified in the middle of the year, we could do a temporary increase again. Um, this is not this does not have to be answered tonight, but just with Wreck
and Senior Center possibly sharing space at Clark, how like does the cost sharing work out? Doesn't have to be tonight, but >> that's something that I've spoken to Charlotte about, trying to come up with something that seems reasonable. >> Yeah. Uh, as of right now, it looks like
there'll be some programming in one space that is dedicated. >> And so, it's a conversation I think she'll have with Heidi or with the future COA director. >> Okay. >> So, moved. Recommendation article six. >> Support article six.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Um, this is sponsored by the TA. >> This would be contingent. >> It should be sponsored by the solution. should be sponsored by the select board. Yeah, >> if you wouldn't mind updating that. >> Y >> and this would also be contingent
>> conditioned upon the >> income supporting also. >> Um all in favor >> I >> I >> Okay 5 contingent upon. >> Okay, moving on to article seven.
This is roadway improvements. Uh this is a $300,000 appropriation um for streets. Uh and this is um for highway and traffic safety projects. >> We can't name specific streets that we
want done on here. >> No, Doug, that might not be appropriate. >> Okay. >> But I think everybody knows your wish that one of a section of one of those streets, >> Essex Street. >> Essex Street, which is actually not where you live. So, just to be clear,
>> three curveball there, didn't I? >> You did not. Never. Not in your tenure. Um, does anybody have questions for the This one is also sponsored by the town administrator, but if the select board was supportive, we could say it is
sponsored by us. I don't think it has to be sponsored by you, does it, Nick? No. >> No. >> Speak now. Do you get a motion? >> Questions? >> Why is this We have money in capital
for this too. Why Why does this happen this way again? >> So there's um chapter 90 funding that we received from the state and that's what this article >> It accepts of money from the state. >> That's all it is except >> Yep. It's it's appropriating the money because that money is subject to
appropriation >> at town meeting unlike other grants. >> Okay. >> Do you want to give them back the money to >> No. >> I will entertain a motion then to uh recommend favorable action on article 7.
>> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I don't be shy. Now's the time. >> I was getting tired. >> I know. uh article eight which is the authorization of um to amend the
authorization of capital projects. Um >> this was language that we had in previously to reprogram money that had been at >> placeholder. >> Yeah, that had been last year. It was the I think design for the library in the basement of town hall was moved for
>> burl. >> Um so it's a placeholder right now. There may not be anything like in fact at this point I don't believe there will be anything but okay >> it's a placeholder that was in the the warrant going backwards. >> Okay. So I guess we'll skip that and if something decides to take its place
we'll report a town meeting article nine which is >> at this point though if we're approving this tonight that's it right? >> Yep. I guess your point. >> Okay. Yeah. What was >> So like a change would be something like the colored sheets where like an an amendment needs to be done at town
meeting where we pass it out and so you know the rosecolored sheet is the amended line. >> So you're you're suggesting we keep this article 8 as a blank. >> It's closed. It was closed already with it in there. So yes, I would keep it in there and we can either indefinitely postpone it.
>> Select where to report it. >> Yeah. So, we will just indefinitely postpone it if it has no substance, >> which currently it does not. >> Okay. >> You don't like it that way? >> No, I think that's the only way we can
do it. I just think in the future I'd rather not close the warrant >> until we're finished with everything. >> Okay. I think there's benefits to both ways and post town meeting we should talk about the strategy going forward because it's a little bit more fulfilling now to
to uh to have certainty and not be rushing to a meeting pre uh right before town meeting which sometimes we have to do right so there's we're forcing ourselves to be a little bit more um >> disciplined
>> disciplined thank you Doug the word article nine N is for appropriation of 2027 recommended capital projects. Again, this was voted uh you're going to tell me what changed because I know something did and then fin did vote to support it. So, go ahead, Patrick.
>> Yes. Um so, there were two changes made by finance committee on Thursday to the recommended capital plan. Uh, one was to um remove funding for a design of solar canopy at the high school and the other
change was to remove funding for uh equipping the middle school and high school gyms with like AV um projector screen speakers. Um so the design for solar canopy was $300,000 150,000 of which would have been grant funded and
the AV equipment was 200 000 >> 200,000. >> Yeah. >> So, so the recommendation was to give up grant funding >> or to give up matching funds. >> They decided not to recommend it with
the information they had at their meeting on Thursday. And if other information reveals itself regarding, you know, return on investment, um, then they would amend their recommendation before town meeting. and they were aware of our I believe 50 vote to support it
last time. >> Patrick cannot opine on what they are actively aware of, but I would assume that since we did so in public, >> I apologize. I did not reiterate that the board's vote to the committee in our meeting Thursday. >> Okay. >> Okay. On the question of additional information, we met with Max today and
Max has already provided Patrick and I with more information on the time for break even and with sort of the largest size consigly considered and then obviously you could lower the size of the project and still get the green communities climate leaders money
towards it. So we will have more information for them for Thursday. I don't know where I can't speak on where they'll land, but part of what they asked for was what we sat down with Max about this morning and he put it together already. >> So, what's the upshot of that? Does it
look as though there's a reasonable return on investment to it or >> there appears to be a reasonable return on investment that they can share their opinion on whether they >> No, I'm not asking for the finance piece. I'm just asking like, you know, does the math math? Yeah. and and Max's
whole idea was if we start with a project that is of sort of the largest size discuss with a potential vendor which was Conigi were the ones that we talked to a little bit about this um we can then sort of downsize the project still get a benefit not as large a
benefit but make sure that the return time is something that sounds reasonable to uh FinCom and anyone else who would want to appine on it and so that's that's the information we want to share with them so that they can make an make a decision that might be more informed than it would have been last week.
>> Could somebody just clarify with me? Is the grant funding matching or is it 150,000? >> I believe it's up to 150 from green communities for technical assistance and so >> but match Oh, okay. Great. >> Um
>> thought it would cost more than that. >> Right. So I'm saying like if we if we downsize the project then the ask from the town is smaller but the grant is the same is all I'm trying to get at. >> Our request would stay the same. Yes. And what one of the topics that we talked about with Max was the idea that
there were a lot of moving pieces in design beyond simply saying we want to know where to put conduit and exactly where the footings should be. >> And so we were trying to narrow what the design would be. And some of it is things that really reasonably could be field engineered. Um in terms of if there's changes to islands or changes to
the front entrance, you know, do we do we need to make changes or can we just do sort of rip and replace on things that need to be fixed because they're 20 plus years old. So Max was considering that feedback as well as as an idea to limit the overall design cost and to focus as much of the design cost as
possible on the canopy and less on you know where the sidewalk will be when we could have someone field engineer that's there as a resident engineer for Kickly or whoever we may hire to do the work. Is there a um
is there a national grid element to this project >> from a funding standpoint? not that I'm currently not a funding standpoint >> that it can be supported >> that uh so we have not had success on solar canopy projects in the past because of national grids inability to
partner with us to get certain information >> or certain I don't know to support the transmission actually right so >> takes a long time >> yeah it takes a long time and we end up getting into this pickle of not being able to execute because of national grids stagnation
>> as I understand where why we landed at this project was the fact that they do have capacity to support it. Okay. Here whereas the uh parking canopy would be too much generation at the elementary school and for approximately five years which in dealing with a utility might
it's five utility years which is more years for us uh in reality that they don't anticipate having the ability to handle that generation at that location. Conigley I believe has had at least initial conversations on all the locations that we were considering it and this is one that can be supported.
But it was also one of the things that Max wanted us to highlight for Fincom is that without this we start to get into a very narrow window of things that climate leaders could be put towards in town >> because of the work that you know similar to the excess levy a lot of work has been done over time um with a lot of
green communities funding and grid money and everywhere else. So we have a a narrow window of potential projects and this is one of them that would best be suited for that climate leaders money. And on that front, did we include like 1.6 million in the
capital budget last year for the elementary school canopy? >> There was some document I saw where it was in there at one point. Was that part of the final? >> It was part of the plan and it was intended for FY27 and at the beginning of this process it came off because of
the the national grid. It wasn't part of the 20 2026 no >> approved last year. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, I have a question. What happens as we're going through the process with the new solid waste contract and we need to
pick up the bill for new bins. >> There's a couple different ways you could fund that. Um you could amend the the capital plan and put funding in there. Um or you could include it in the solid waste operating budget um in the enterprise fund.
>> I don't I don't see how that number would fit into >> it's a onetime cost. So you could look at other funding sources such as free cash to cover that budgetary hit. >> I think based on our free cash numbers and what the anticipation would be for those bins, I don't think that's an
option either. So I actually think that um we need to bring this to the attention of the finance committee and start to talk about the possibilities because I think my concern is if we have to bring on through capital new bins
uh my worry is how will it affect what we're looking for right now and especially um getting getting the track repaired. Wasn't there something about being able to delay I want to come back to the the canopy thing, but um wasn't there
something about being able to delay the that they could phase it in? >> Yeah, the automation >> the automation for we are we're still at the at the process and Marielle and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong from the meeting that occurred last week. >> There has not been a final recommendation from the solid waste
advisory committee on either of the two respondents that we are looking at. Um, so the question of delaying could actually incur additional costs because we're paying additional money for manual. And so the idea would be we'd want to get to fully automatic as
quickly as possible to limit that additional expense. Uh, Patrick and I did talk a little bit today, Marielle, and to the point you're raising about opportunities and ways that we could potentially pay for it. It's certainly >> a part of any discussion that we need to have going forward and as soon as we make that final determination, enter
into negotiation. We do not want to include the cost as part of the contract because ultimately >> the the vendors make some money off that as well. We just want to pay for them and get them. >> Um and we do have the benefit of the fact we already have the the solid waste barrels. It's a recycling thing for
right now. >> Um so it's a question that we have not yet answered and we're happy to continue to work with you and report back to the board as we get closer to a final vendor choice and then get through the negotiation process. I think we just have to really keep all
our variables open and know that there's a there's a time there's a time issue here. >> Well, it would be really helpful if we had known anything about the trash contract or potential before we got to this point where we're this close to town meeting and the budget. It would
have been helpful to know some of this ahead of time if this is a concern or where this concern is coming from. If Nick is saying there's not at this point because nothing is really decided what what actually is the situation. >> There will be an expense and so
>> but how how much how we're going to pay for it whether it can be delayed all of that is still undecided. >> Correct. >> Well, they've just answered the RFP just went out within >> I don't think it just >> three weeks >> a month a month ago >> and the responses came back. The
responses are now two weeks. >> We've had the responses for three weeks. >> Three weeks, >> right? So, I I I don't want to make people fearful of something we haven't even found out yet. >> Right. But, I mean, if there was a conversation to be had before we looked
at all of this, before we recommended changes to capital and everything else, I mean, I really think we should have done that weeks ago if that was such a dire situation. I from from my standpoint with the feedback from solid waste advisory, we
meet again on Thursday. I think Patrick and I are more than happy to come to you all with a recommendation that you can thumbs up, thumbs down, tell us to rework things about ways that we're comfortable trying to pay for it. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And we can go from there if that works.
>> I have a different question on that. You have the bids, correct? How does that does that comport with what's here in solid waste enterprise? >> It will be higher. It will be slightly higher and we will
have to address that. But we have not to the a point that you made early on. We will enter into negotiations with one of the two vendors. So I would I would like to be able to have those discussions with them and come to you with a recommendation as opposed to >> there was concern at one point that you
thought the number I was providing was too high and needed to be lowered in our sort of working document and budget the proposed budget. So if we could conclude the negotiations and come back to the select board with the number I think that puts us in the best position to negotiate right now. Y
>> great. >> Okay. Can we go back? >> Yeah. Let's go back to the um >> canopy. >> Canopy. Sure. Let's do that. >> Okay. I moved shockingly. >> So, sorry. Can we What What was the change? Because this doesn't reflect the
change, right? >> No. >> The two changes that were made at their meeting Thursday are not reflected, right? >> So, what is the solar canopy? They reduced it to what? >> They removed the three. >> Oh, they pushed it out. I'm sorry. Apologize. Got so distracted by trash. And what was the second change?
>> Middle school high school gym technology upgrade was also removed. >> Okay. Which is >> that's 150,000. I think I said 200 earlier. I'll correct myself. And then the one piece that I want to add that we were going to share with finance on Thursday, I I spoke to the
superintendent today and based on the the broad support for the letter of interest on the MSBA letter, there's 200,000 in here. It's basically to create an additional classroom within the space that exists at the middle school that he's, you know, hopeful that it's beneficial to the whole community
and making sure that other priorities such as the track and and trash and everything else are funded to push that out as well. So that's another 200 that would come off this year. >> So that's number 30 39. >> It is middle school classroom >> middle school classroom space
improvements and needs. >> Okay. So it's 3339. And what what is the one that Patrick is uh talking about the secondary one? Oh, technology upgrades 56. Thank you. >> 56. Yep. And just to give the full background, the idea with the middle school
classroom space is, you know, we're moving forward with MSBA, assuming we continue to move in that process. That to him is a sort of something we would like to do if we don't think we're moving on from that building, whereas the windows are a must, you know, like
>> it's a sort of environment and safety thing for that, whereas this was additional space that they were trying to squeeze out of the building. Can I ask a question about 63? >> 63 sewer main rehabilitation.
>> So So is that is 63 the $3.5 million is that for phase 2b or not? Is is that is that phase 2b? >> I thought phase 2 was funded.
>> I'm not sure. say for certain >> and is this an SRF loan? That's the amounts that we were doing for SRFs. >> So the authorization that was made at last town meeting we are receiving an
SRF loan for. So this would be another trunch beyond that. >> That helps. >> Okay. So we it could be an SRF loan if we applied and we're accepted, but we would uh >> allocate 3.5 million regardless. >> So it's borrowing, but hopefully through
that mechanism. >> Yeah. Whether whether it's an SRF at 2% or whether we're going to use our AAA bond rating. >> Y >> hopefully it's an SRF loan at 2%. >> I'd be happy to get up and diagram. >> We you didn't bring your markers today. >> There's there's some right there. Um
just so just additionally on that on 63 um so let's let's say this is this is part of the next phase of work for Stacy's Brook. You know, we heard last week uh that
you know that there were a number of there were a number of uh laterals 500 in in total that were you know that were funded and rehabilitated using public dollars. So we had public dollars used for
private um laterals. Last week, we had asked uh the town administrator uh to uh to look into, you know, just how that can be how that can be addressed moving forward because what we did hear last week was another four or 500 laterals
could potentially require fixing. And from the conversation that we had last week, it was about $6,000 per lateral. So just the math doesn't really math to me because of this $ three and a half million dollars potentially if we're if
if we're going to continue with what we've done before which I I don't public benefit or not I don't think we can just spend public dollars on private property but how do we pay for this moving forward because we don't have the
cash we don't have the money to pay for another 500 laterals and reline all of our all of our sewer pipes that need to be uh rehabilitated. So I I I just need to have some understanding here. Otherwise, I can't
support that particular line because I because the town can simply not afford to have to pick up the tab for fixing another four or 500 >> laterals. >> Is there a question? >> Yeah. How Yeah. So yeah.
>> Yeah. The question the question is >> the question was last week we had asked we had asked to see if there were to to see if there was a process by which we would be >> so you could >> the the pro I'm sorry I was trying to
>> the betterment distinguish which the question that's that's the ter that's determin the the betterment is Patrick walked through sort of the the criteria that we need to develop and it would also I think require us coming for to this board and it was not something that
we were going to be ready to do, you know, 10 days after the last discussion so that the policy decision can be made on whether or not Betterment wants to be pursued. And then also we would provide a recommended um criteria and sort of
qualification for how we would go about doing it. And so that's something we are more than happy to come back to the board with and had given sort of the framework of it that it it requires deciding what the criteria are going through the public process making sure
that the community has an opportunity to weigh in and then the board makes a policy decision. Understood. But um but we're asking to be we're asking to approve $3.5 million where there's we already spent $3 million fixing private laterals. We have another 500 laterals
that are that are that our DPW director had indicated would also need to be fixed. 500 times $6,000 is three million bucks. I I can't approve that if we don't have a mechanism where the town can recapture all or a vast majority of those costs. I
just I think it would be fiscally irresponsible for us to do that. Does town meeting have to vote on a betterment? Um, pol I I believe you do have to identify in advance that you're going to fund it in that manner or a portion of a project in
that manner. Um, if that answers your question. >> So I think so what would it take to be able to put that together this time? I don't think that this is necessarily
something we should rush to do. >> Um, happy to sit down with Patrick and get on the phone with our attorneys tomorrow and share that information with all five of you and the two new folks on Wednesday um to see what would be
possible in terms of putting it in this warrant. I I think ultimately this is a relatively big decision to make uh based on the fact that we've already done it under the idea that this is there is a community benefit to it with our our effort to get out from
under the consent decree and the fact that it's been discussed publicly since 2017. I'm happy to talk to them tomorrow and again share a sort of memo to the the board as soon as we have information and then bring it for a public discussion to the next town next select board meeting as well.
>> Just for just for sake of a differing opinion um I don't believe this has been discussed publicly since 2017. I don't believe the the capital improvement committee had any idea that these
laterals were being fixed, the private laterals were being fixed with public dollars. That would have set off alarm bells uh for for the for the CIC. I've I've talked >> that we've spoken publicly since 2017 about that. >> Certainly not with CIC. No. >> Well, if CRC is paying attention to any
of our meetings, then I think they've heard it because we've absolutely discussed it in this in these meetings. >> Okay. And just because it's been discussed here doesn't make it doesn't doesn't doesn't that author that that that authorization that doesn't mean that just because you're saying it and you're putting it out in the open doesn't mean it's right.
So again >> no I'm not outlining on its justice. I am I'm just simply saying that it's not fair to say that we haven't discussed it since 2017 because we absolutely have and we we it's come up multiple times in conversation including when we looked at ARPA funds. So
I don't think it's a fair >> Is it the process with which we've decided which laterals to fix that is that your question? >> I think the process that we've decided to fix any of the of the private laterals and it's been easy for us to
just say hey look we're going to throw money at this problem. We're going to we're going to have the problem go away rather than create policy to say all right moving you know moving forward which is what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to look backwards, but I think we have to understand what happened what
happened in the past. We know that there are >> approximately as many laterals to to to be fixed as we've already fixed. We generally know what that cost before. There's been escalators since 2017. So,
we have to assume that that's a $3 million >> bogey plus cost escalators. So, I think it's irresponsible for us to not have to not have that planned and it would be my recommendation to say let's put a halt
on this until we until we figure that piece out rather than rush through town meeting and say we're we want to we want to fix this. We want to get out from our consent decree. We're going to fix we're going to spend $3 million fixing this. That doesn't really leave too much money
for sewer main rehabilitation just per the numbers that we heard last last week. Uh, I generally agree with David and uh, while I didn't necessarily expect us to be ready to take a vote today, I did expect that we would have a
little bit more information. Um, so um, I know this is unusual, but like it doesn't even sound like we're 100% clear. I mean, when it do we label things when we're doing the pipes as sewer main rehabilitation? I want
>> Didn't we ask about this? There's actually the main like I just want to make sure we're even talking about the the same thing here. >> So when we're lining the mains, >> this is this is the normal continuation. You're sure about that part? >> Yes. Okay. Because Patrick was
>> understand what phase it was? >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't I asked him. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I mean I I prefer if we text Gino right now and find out like do we have an I'm serious. No, >> this is really this is a lot of money. I I totally agree with Davis. a lot of money and we did have this conversation
and we did express the fact there was at least some of us that had a lot of concern. >> Um and so is it not possible at least to figure out like is this money going to be needed within fiscal year 27 to continue
with the pipe work that we're doing? >> I I will just say without texting him, we would I I would not anticipate Gino would make a request for money that he does not anticipate needing to spend on a project like this. I'm happy to send him a text message and see if we can get an answer. At the same time, I don't
know that it's reasonable to expect that he's going to answer me in the next few minutes at 8:45 on >> I agree >> on Monday, but I'm happy to ask. >> But is there not a different solution? So if we believe that we want to move
forward with betterment and that we want to create a policy and process in place, can we preemptively say because the mechanism right now is borrowing, can we preemptively give it a mechanism of slash betterment and then if a betterment existed be able to fund it
through that way? If not, we would have borrowing available to us. Is that a valid way to solution this problem under the impression that we would be basically saying the benefit is preferred in some instances David is saying conditioned upon but we need a
mechanism for sort of vetting that process and what it looks like and public comment to it before we and possibly yeah I mean I just I don't want to not I don't want to delay the funding and if there is a if there's a way around it of just saying like the commitment of this
board is that betterment is the commitment and we will facilitate that. Then is that a way for you two gentlemen to get comfortable with it? >> Well, is there any also is there any harm in just pushing this out into our fall town meetings so we have
appropriate time to to really to to wrangle this and to get to get all the information possible. The the one concern I would have with that, and I think Gino did address this when he was here two weeks ago, >> is that the contract needs to be signed >> at the end of this fiscal year. And we
can't sign a contract without funding, >> even though this funding doesn't kick in until next fiscal year. >> So July 1st, >> right? >> July 1st versus December 7th. Doesn't it's it's something that we need to be
able to move forward with this year. I will ask him. I'm happy to move forward in whatever way you all want, but as I recall the conversation, and I'm doing this solely for memory, it was that the SRF funding is something that needs to be in place for the and this is related
to a previous SRF that has been approved. I believe >> um that we needed to have that all done in time so that we can immediately go in on July 1st and pushing it to December then means it's next construction season, not this construction season, >> which could mean increased costs, which
could mean other factors. Well, right. But that's that's why this Sorry, but that's why, you know, I'm sorry to bother anybody, but it I mean, this is a big dollar amount, and I'm I'm not convinced that this is the money that is actually being
used for that immediate July one contract. I would it seems to me that it's a reasonable chance that it's actually we've already got the money in place for that contract that this is kind of stocking up for the next one, >> right?
>> Um but it's unclear exactly where we're at, frankly, in this whole process to me at the moment. So, but back to your suggestion, Katie, I mean, I certainly think that's >> a reasonable one if it had some teeth to it in a way because
>> it's it's a good start to have slash >> better make it make it with some teeth to it, >> right? Um, >> you know, we didn't, I don't think, vote for whatever last time. Go ahead. So it says the
appropriation will be spent over two years due to the magnitude of the project on the description here. >> What's left right now? >> 3.5 million for two fiscal years. >> Right. >> Right. When is it needed? Can Could it wait till Could it wait till the fall
because we got enough to make it till then or not? You know, whatever. But sorry. Go ahead. >> What what what do your numbers look like right now? what you're working off of because we had ARPA money, we had
appropriations, and then we had the SRF loan, right? >> For silver work, >> right? >> Mhm. >> So, what is what does it look like in your detail as far as the money you're working off of now? When do you think
this money is going to kick in? The funding that's in this warrant, I believe, is for the next round of SRF funding. That's my belief. We approved money at last town meeting and we have like a loan
commitment in hand from the SRF program, >> right, >> for that money. So that's that is my belief. I'm fairly confident in that, right? That's what >> So this would be an additional trunch and we would go for an additional round of funding through the SRF with this
authorization on this warrant. >> So it sounds like if we were to prove this with a caveat that we want the betterment attached to it, it sounds like we'd have enough time to add the betterment. >> Gino said we can make it till December
to your point, Doug, with the money that is currently available. >> And so that gives us time to do the betterment in a a broad and public way and to the point you're making right now get through to the the December town meeting with a a betterment process that people can weigh
in on and can answer more of the questions that David that you have generally about how many to expect and what it will look like. >> Yeah. And and I'm not trying to I'm not trying to stop anything. I'm just trying to make sure that we're financial that we're strong financial stewards >> for the town for the for the rateayer for the taxpayer.
>> So what does that mean? we don't need to sign any contracts now or we do approve it now and then say we're going to do a better >> he said he said that we can make it to December. So to me that means we can take this out >> and move it to >> with the understanding that we're going to look at betterment and we can communicate a town meeting that we
anticipate coming with some more information in December and potentially an article that requires appropriation. And I think betterment means process understanding the process right and making it public um specifically saying and I I do remember asking this at the
last meeting which have been repaired what is on the schedule for the next set of repairs what's the criteria that we utilize to decide what's getting repaired all of that which is would probably lend some more credibility to the whole thing and resolve some of these questions. Yeah, I think it's two
parts. It's the public information from DPW, what has been done, what will be done, but also walking through the process of what Betterment means for the rate payers that are impacted by it. I'm letting people come and weigh in on that. >> Great. >> Okay. So, then the motion I would entertain if there aren't any additional
There are. >> Oh, there are. Sorry, Doug. Yeah, don't apologize. I apologize. >> Um, okay. So, we just saved $3.5 million. >> Well, we didn't save it. We just we just made it. Yes. >> Uh David did. >> Don't take too much credit. David did all the leg work.
>> Exactly. >> Um the 15 line 56 is coming out. >> Yes. That's >> took that out, right? >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Now you're saying, Nick, that line 39 is also not needed.
>> Correct. With the understanding that we're pushing it to an out year and see what happens with the letter of interest. >> Okay. Did Fincom know that that came out today and it's something I would talk to them about on Thursday? >> Okay. Um, so there's Yeah. >> Do you want to go back to solar
candidate? >> Oh, that's a good idea. Any thought about that? >> Yeah. Yes, I do. Um, yes. So, >> what's that? >> I knew you would. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we've already voted on this, I think, collectively. Um, so >> you want to put
>> So I guess you know FINCOM makes the recommendation, right? So we're not literally changing it, but uh basically we're going to be putting together what our recommendation is, which is their recommendation with the solar canopy money back in
um at the net 150 or the 300 um as it was. But also with this middle school classroom space taken out. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yep. And >> and the sewer main
>> and the gym technology >> taken out. >> I would just say they already took that out. They're pushed Oh, sorry. >> They're pushed out in the plan. We're not just Yeah. for this. >> They'll be in the appendix. We're only voting on >> what we're voting on. They'll be in the appendix. Correct. So would it would it not make more sense
for us to commit to the discussion right now but just report a town meeting so that we would be able to explain what what exactly we vote to support >> or does it make sense to vote zero to
five or whatever the poll is that we do not support the article as as written like what's the better optics is what I'm trying to get at so I think potentially It's better for us to not vote for our us to discuss the strategy
which we will sort of uh you will delineate a person outside of your um of you guys leaving to discuss what the conversation was for us here and what we would like to add.
>> Last year we had an amendment >> remember >> because we actually had some differences with the fincom and we came forth with an amendment. >> We did. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Okay. So, >> so that's what I'd suggest you all would do this year as well, >> but we you would do it also if we we could vote to do it right now, could we
not? >> We Yes, we could. But I'm talking about literally at that meeting. Yes. >> So, that's I guess where I was going. I was I was proposing the amendment. Okay. Um,
but before we get there, there's one other item I want to make sure we're clear on. So we have the 600,000 here for Burl Street. >> Yes. >> This is going to be a separate thing. So I don't think it actually affects the but just to give you
>> prep time. Yep. >> Um like there isn't that other there isn't another warrant article in here for that which we talked about as well. So I'll give both of you some prep time to respond to that as we proceed through this um because now we're on the budget
one. But it still seems to me that we were supposed to have another warrant article in here. So, we'll come back to that because I don't think it really affects the budget per se. >> Well, maybe it does. >> I was going to say I don't follow what you're saying. >> Okay. I'm sorry. All right. Remember, we've talked about this.
>> Yes. >> Six months ago, whatever it was, we voted. We said we're going to set this up in a separate fund. We had to I'm sorry, Nick. I I know you look exasperated, but I'm a little bit exasperated about it as well. >> I'm not exasperated. >> Well, okay. So, um, you know, we've
asked several times for you guys to go back to the minutes and come forth with explicitly and what needed to happen per that vote and I still have not seen anything telling me exactly what we need to do. You get you keep coming back saying it needs to go in this capital
real estate fund, but that you've never said that that's is that what we literally voted for because we had specific guidance at that point from KP about exactly the mechanism. Is that what you guys found? That was what we needed to do.
So, as I understand it, in the minutes, there is not something reflected to show that there is anything different being done with the money, the approved minutes of the December meetings in 2024. And I believe that was where we were directed to look. Is that accurate
as far as the time frame? >> We we we gave you our best guess at that point. If you only looked into >> No, there was there was a discussion in those meetings about this process and and but that money goes into a sale of real estate account that can then be appropriated for first the cost of the
purchase of the land to retire debt and next for capital improvements in town. So we have expressed that before. We have reviewed the minutes and what we found
did not redirect and I'm sorry to exasperate you now. Um but I'm I'm not sure what more we can do. It's it is clear. We have talked to finance committee and CIC around the fact that this money the 600
here is meant to be you know the design money comes from um the amendment to the authorization for capital for as I said the library and town hall and then this money would be for all intents and purposes reimbured from
the payment that is made upon the co I believe by Benth All right. >> Do we all agree we took a vote about this? >> We do. I do. I agree with you. Yep. >> I mean, I know we
I I think philosophically I agree with what you're saying that the money is going to be utilized for this. I don't remember the exact language being that we were setting up a separate account. I don't I don't recall that being something, but I didn't commit the conditions of the vote to memory. So,
I I don't recall that. >> I can't access the 24 meeting. The >> I do recall it. I do remember hearing and saying that we were setting aside money in a separate account >> and we had two different options and we >> I do remember that when that happened
that I'm fuzzy on. I did think it was December. >> Well, I think it had to have been because that's when we voted to support the LDA. >> Yeah, I did. >> And not necessarily. Just because we didn't reflect it in a certain set of minutes doesn't mean it didn't occur, right? I guess >> you watch the meeting. Yeah, I I I did
go through the minutes and I worked with Shannon and Nick on this and I did watch back some of the meetings as well where we were talking about Pine Street in those meetings and I couldn't find language that was said in the meeting to this effect. Um, and I did try to go
through it and be, you know, >> pretty careful. >> Well, I remember us talking about intent and then that the issue was because I remember the issue was whether or not we what we could actually do. We had to look into what we could do because money has to get appropriated specific ways
that we couldn't just say, "Okay, it wasn't it wasn't up to us to be able to just appropriate money the way we wanted to appropriate money." That there are specific ways in which it had to happen. But the intent was to >> Yeah. I thought, wait a minute now. I
thought that we couldn't bind future boards. Uh but we gave an intent at the time. >> It was intent. >> Didn't we say Doug? Does any of this ring a bell that we No. >> So the question is how we can do that now. Is that is that what we're
>> It's making sure that if the account needs to be created that it is created so that the payment from Benth has a place to go that's not the sale of real estate account >> right >> and the payment the payment occurs on co if I'm not mistaken. >> Yes. >> I know I sound like a broken record
right now but we can also address this in December. and all five of you can direct us very clearly right now to make sure that we come back to the board regardless of membership in June or you know to say like this is
the path going forward we were incorrect we were correct whatever the case may be after again reviewing the meetings and the minutes to make sure that it reflects the actions that you requested town staff to take and if it's intent that's important as opposed to trying to
create an account that currently we do not understand being the way to do this, then we will come in and tell you that we were wrong and this is how we can do it and we will put it on the the warrant for December. >> Yeah. I guess a little bit, Doug, if you don't mind clarifying. Uh, if we're committing to spend the
funds on Burl and making the investment, I'm not really sure if I fully appreciate why the separate fund matters, if the commitment is being made at the capital level by us right now. >> Well, I think, you know, obviously
there's a lot of context to this. >> I know, and I'm not trying to get into it all, but I really am trying to I want to >> That was a little joke. So, We have 600,000. >> Yeah. >> We've set up in a capital plan. >> Okay. >> And as Nick just in some ways what Nick
is saying is making it, you know, all the more reason why we try to be intentional about this because he's saying, okay, well, it's going to go into this, you know, capital fund and it can be used, you know, the 1.5 million, it can be used for various purposes to improve the real estate of the town or
whatever, right? So that that clearly doesn't direct it towards this. Yes, there's 600,000 being put aside here, but there were estimates at one point that it was going to cost 1.2 million to do what needed to be done there to make that into what needed to
happen. So that was the point of all of this was to say given the fact that the vets were moving there, we wanted to make sure there was going to be no no short shifting going on. >> Right now we got this number down to 600. I think there was some process to
get it to 600. That's was the the latest best estimate. >> Yeah. >> But what happens if it's 800,000 >> or a million? >> And there's other reasons that, you know, another board comes along. That was the whole point. You know, we gone through a contentious problematic
situation. This was part, you know, part of the resolution to it. And we wanted that money set aside. We all said kumbaya. Basically, we want to make sure there's enough money to really do the vets thing there. >> Yeah. >> Right. So yeah, that's the point of it. >> Yep. Okay.
>> Okay. So having >> So can we take a vote or make a motion that will be that will solidify that intention? I I mean >> um we we have said to finance committee, we've said to you all the idea is that
that money is repaid to the town by the proceeds. So that it's a short-term borrowing in order to get the work done if it's 600 or if we needed to come back and say it was a different number. But we would not be rolling this into a long-term debt because we have funds that are imminent,
>> but work that needs to be done in advance, right, >> of that payment, >> right? So this is sort of that bridge between when the CO is issued um and being able to move forward with work. So we are ready >> right >> at the point at which they need a place to be. >> Yeah. Right.
>> In in that same vein, I'll just add I think no matter what if if funding isn't going to be received until, you know, much later for any work to occur now, we would have to have a borrowing authorization from town meeting to incur an obligation. >> Right. >> Totally. >> Which is why it's in here. But it's only
600,000. What What if we need more? >> We could re the board could recommend more as part of the article >> with other amendments being made. That could be something that you all could decide to adjust as well.
I think nobody is is doubting the philosophy behind it, Doug. And we are all still standing here today with the same commitment. It is just the mechanism by which that commitment solidifies this board's commitment to do that. So
like I will just come out and say if it's a million dollars like it's a million dollars and we come forward and I will champion a million dollars just as if you and David were here. I know that's like not good enough for what you're asking right now and you want something concrete to hold.
>> Well, I think we all um made that promise, right? I don't think we picked 600,000. I remember I said at that time, you know, whatever it was going to take to do right by the veterans, >> right? >> Um I know I said that. So I stand firm
in that belief and you know and I understand your your want to to codify it or document it considering you know this is your last meeting. I totally understand it. I get it. I agree with it. I I'm with you. you know, so if there's something if there's some motion
we can make tonight that solidifies that that you know, we're earmarking this money for J for, you know, upon the CO uh of that 600,000 and as much as necessary, whatever we need to say. I mean, I I understand exactly where you're coming
from. And I I do think we did at the last meeting ask specifically, I think it was from Tom McCannernney maybe to get some clarification on it. So I I understand the frustration. Um you know and I think time is of the essence too, right? So it's this is the last meeting
for you guys and um you want to see this done and done the right way because it was important to both of you and as it is to the rest of us too. But it was a contentious situation and we just want it handled the right way. So I get it. >> It was contentious.
So, I mean, here's the conundrum we're in, right? Because like if we don't close if we don't vote on all of the articles, we're sort of in this your signatures get electronically fixed and we then report it to town meeting for some of them which are not them. Right.
So I think that's the part Nick was trying to avoid >> would >> um and so we are you know voting now so that you two are at the table. So there is like we are understanding of
that being valuable after your commitments to the town. So >> So do you want to amend that dollar amount? Um, >> sorry.
>> That's okay. >> Where did the 600 number come from? >> Is that for Max saying >> Max Marzy the veterans all met? >> They're saying this is this is what we're going to need to get this rolling >> and that's been that has been on the plan. >> Right. Okay. But to that point, we all
know that some of the numbers on this plan are not >> quite accurate. So, I understand the the caution, you know, of it really being 600,000, right? When we still get 2 million for Hawthorne's demolition in here. So, how solid is that number? >> Yeah, I think originally it was much
higher because it was unclear if they were just using the ground floor, if they were using other floors. There was talk of an elevator. There was talk of a lot of things that inflated that number to close to 1.2 million in the heated conversations originally. And then once we sort of got over the hump, we came
back around with clearer heads and came to this number. I think it's do we commit to a minimum 600,000? >> Well, that we'd need to give a number the high end really, not the low, not the low end. >> Um, this is to make that the ground level entrance and that space
>> access. >> What whatever we come up with with them, it's accessible, but also making the improvements to that space that they want. This does not add an elevator or there are other pieces that in the future I think would be great and beneficial both to the veterans community but the larger community
>> if we did make those improvements to sort of unlock the whole building to period uses. >> Yep. >> This is to make sure that there is a space that is um akin to the canteen y >> that's available immediately available post relocation >> right when we're asking them to leave
that we're ready for them to have some place to go. So, so does this also include any systems improvements? Because I I do I do recall having to the building that I believe there was a need for a roof. I believe there was a need for electrical
uh a new electrical system. I I just want to make sure that this $600,000 not only fixes, you know, I guess brings the canteen from Pine Street to to Burl Street, but also gets us to a co gets us
to a building that is that is up to >> I I is up to code. I'm certainly confident that what Max put together gives us what we need to get a CO for sure. Um, I know wiring throughout the building would be an issue, but if we're going if the demand on that wiring and
the demand on the the usage in the building will be focused on that ground level, I assume without having Max here answer the question directly that it includes improvement system improvements in the space that will be used. I don't know that it means that we're going to rewire the whole building for future
potential uses, but I I I know he said that that is part of the concern throughout that as we add something like an elevator, look at potential uses for the >> up the stairs in the second floor. I don't know, you know, the second, third, first, second, >> um,
>> that there are other improvements that certainly would need to be made overall to again unlock the whole building as opposed to making sure that they have a space that's reasonably suited, that they help us design um, and ready to go when they need it.
>> So, I'm just looking back at minutes. I actually don't think it happened in December because this that's when we took the very contentious vote. I don't think this happened at that same time. I think this happened a couple months later. Actually, we kind of came back
around to a resolution. So, I would ask you to kind of look at the minutes. And the only reason I'm harping on this is because we spent a fair amount of time kind of with KP and everything trying to figure out like what the right language was. So, we can recreate the wheel here,
but it's there somewhere. Um, either that or I'm totally losing my mind. Um but you're not I think we definitely I can remember very clearly you know sorry I didn't go hunting for it. I can do that tonight or whatever but um
>> so so I I apologize also because I wasn't completely listening to the conversation so I don't know where we're at. >> So we will go forward in additional months to look and identify it. >> Yeah. Um to the point that was raised
earlier, are you comfortable the CO will not be issued before December. So would you be comfortable with us continuing to explore that to make sure that it if there was exact language that we did not yet identify that we can address that bring it to the the board as it's
composed in the future and say that >> to a fall town meeting >> for the fall town meeting we want an article to address this request that was made early in 25 is what I'm getting. >> Yeah. um to make sure that we reflect that discussion by the board and obviously three of the members will
still be the same and I think you all have made very clear what your opinions are and hopefully future composition of the board would be willing to you know you can't bind them but certainly be willing to support something like this because it's to make right >> yeah the change in the conditions for
the veterans which was also something that's meant to increase housing like there's a lot of >> y >> competing but forward-looking priorities alto together here that we would ask for that article to be in December if that's okay. >> Yep. It's going to have to be right now. Um and what did you guys did you guys
resolve on whether or not the 600,000 is enough for now or how to approach it? >> That's still open. >> That's still open. Okay. Um so what do you what do you all think we should do in that regard? Uh maybe do we have any sense because
you could say the same thing about addition if there's a need for additional funding you take that up in the fall as well. Um, right. So, >> but I assume this number of thin air. I mean, this was a revised >> it's estimate.
>> It's from the efforts of Max and Marzy talking to the veterans prior to my beginning and then also having met there a couple times with them since and to Patrick's point, it's been on the it's been a number I'm accepting for Danielle's point about demolition that some things are not maybe perfectly
accurate. This has been on there for a couple years. Um I there might be a utility instead of waiting for the fall to you know again raise the ceiling with the idea that we're going to keep it as economical as possible. Um if you all think that there is a real expectation
that it's going to be over 600 despite the fact that we put this together. >> I think we have no way to know. We truly don't at this point right. um we have no concept of plan what specifically scope I mean we really have
no way to know >> and my experience in the last seven months with Max is that he kind of thinks that way so that he's not saying 600 knowing that we're going to be at 599 and we'll be fine it's he tries to >> be reasonable about the fact that there
needs to be >> a contingency for things that are unforeseen >> but you If we're putting out the the uh sewer rehab at least until December, if not beyond, if there's other things that are coming off there, >> right, you would potentially
>> there could potentially be an opportunity where you can say there's some breathing room that we're creating with our amendments that we would like to raise this so that we make sure that all the funds necessary are available. >> That makes sense. Sounds good. >> Okay. So, move this to what? a million.
>> I'll support that. >> Is that what we're I mean, it's like we're kind of throwing a dart here. When you said when you said it sounds good, Mariel, what were you saying? >> Well, I just we have a recommendation from our facility director. So, I'm pretty good with that recommendation from the facil facility director. If
there has to be a change made or an addition at a later time, >> okay, >> make a change or an addition later time. I mean, >> and Again, I apologize if you guys just talked about this. So, the the estimate here because on one hand I'm hearing this number had been around for a while.
On the other hand, I'm hearing did was this a fresh estimate for everything that needs to be done to meet the needs of the veterans? That's what landed us,000. >> We don't we wouldn't have a written estimate because we haven't had a contractor come in. It's an informed
>> suggestion from our facilities director based on what they've been talking about going back, which is that ground floor space being, you know, renovated for lack of a better phrase to meet the needs as they've been described >> um and make sure that there's space
that's available. I I can't be the fact that Max has put this together, I can't add a lot of color to how accurate it is. As I said, I do trust when he puts together a price like this because, you know, even when we were talking today about the design of the parking lot and the solar canopy and things like that,
he was saying like that's something I considered. That's something I talked toly about. He is very thoughtful about putting these together. I do not believe, >> you know, you said we're kind of throwing a dart. I feel like if I give you a number that's not the one that he's put together in a reasonable way and then presented to us and CIC that
I'm also throwing a dart, not really helping you all at all. >> Yep. That's fair. My only question is not at all about an estimate that Max does, but it's more in the convers is there any possibility that there's daylight in the conversations between Max or Marzy and
the vets and everything in terms of how much they're really taking into consideration whether or not something's being made handicapped accessible or the elevator or the this or the that and you know like whose version of like what the estimate was supposed to be about is that completely and given this whole
situation from the beginning. In a way, it, you know, it would be nicer if it was perfectly clear, obviously. >> So, what is the suggested solution, Doug?
Is everyone's behind you and everybody wants to see that you're satisfied because we've all committed to this and we all continue to commit to it. So, like I know we're putting it on you, but >> Well, I have a recommendation. Why don't
we leave it at the 600, have Max give us an update by the next meeting, and if we have to make an adjustment, make an adjustment, make an adjustment or an amendment on the floor to increase it to where we're going to need to be. And then we're going to have to be prepared
for in the future um for possible more adjustments. And we also have Marzy applying for disability >> uh grants which she feels pretty confident we're going to be able to get. So it's a work in progress. But I think
if we agree to this amount and then follow up with Max, make an adjustment if we have to make an adjustment. Would that work for you? >> That sounds good. >> Okay. >> Okay.
So, >> so who's um So, we're gonna >> So, we got a we got I'm going to make a motion for an amendment budget, right? >> Are you drafting set amendment? >> Yes. Right now. Here it comes. >> Okay. >> You ready, Shannon?
>> So, I move that we amend the finance committee approved capital budget in the following ways. that in item 11,
we are approving $600,000 contingent on a revalidation of that amount by the town administrator and staff.
that it will be sufficient to meet the full needs of the veterans. >> So if that condition is met, then no such amendment would be made on town meeting floor.
>> Correct. That I'm we're concurring we're concurring with the 600 contingent on the fact that it >> I'm just asking for clarity. So we on >> 18 be exactly what we commit to. Yeah. >> Can I just ask the are you drafting here
the amendment that you want for town meeting? >> Yes. >> So that will already have happened or not happened by then? >> That's why I was clarifying also. So >> assuming Max comes in and says it's 750 or it's 600 >> your amendment is the number that Max
says is appropriate, right? >> Okay. You want me to re ref? >> No, no, no. We're just >> No, I'm just clarifying so that >> Yeah. >> Okay. So it is either 600 if confirmed or the number by which Max confirms >> or Y. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> Y. >> Yep.
>> You understand that? >> Okay. Got it. All right. Okay. On line 39, we are removing this for this year. >> Pushing it to an out.
>> Yep. On line 56, >> we are >> actually we're concurring with the finance committee on that. So there's no amendment to that. They've already they've already struck that >> not the CL they >> No, he's talking about 56 which is the
tech improvements in the >> this is part of thing. Yep. You got it. Sorry. >> We are uh removing for now line 63. pushing to December. >> Pushing to December subject to
>> further discussion about >> betterments. >> You have to add back in three. >> And uh on line 33 >> we are recommending the 300,000
with the 150,000 coming from a grant. Ideally, the first 150,000 comes from a grant, >> which is how Max described it this morning, >> right? >> Especially as we started to narrow what design meant in the case of this project. >> Right. >> So, that's line 33.
>> Add back. >> Yeah, that's all it >> second. Okay. So all in favor of voting to support the amendment as proposed by the vice chair.
>> I I >> I did vote. >> I did. I said I >> Doug. >> Doug. Sorry. >> Doug made the motion. Vice chair. >> Danielle seconded. >> Just to be fairly clear. I am an I for
Doug. >> Okay. Um article 10 we already voted on. Yep. >> Article 11 is the prohibiting the use of anti-coagulant rodenticides on town property. Um
>> so just that's listed twice because >> correct on the floor. Correct. >> So we will so this will be um I >> think David has a question. Sorry. No, no, no. I was just >> So this will be propo as proposed by the select board and then we will invite the citizen to indefinitely postpone the
citizens decision. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. So um >> 11 and 12. >> So for 11 I will entertain a motion to support article 11. >> So moved. >> I get a second. >> Second. >> All discussion or we can move.
>> I all in favor. I. Any else says I >> we're all an I. Okay. So, the citizens petition we don't opine on right now, but the idea would be that because we will hopefully have passed it as article 11. Article 12 would be indefinitely postponed. Article 13 is also a citizens
petition. I just want to say because uh publicly for whomever is listening and whoever might read the minutes, just a clarification on citizens petition. And I'm sure I'm purging to the choir here, but Doug and I had a resident who was quite perturbed that we were focused on fog gra and not other more pressing town
matters. Citizens petitions are a matter of democracy and any citizen can get enough petitioners to agree with them to put something on the warrant. Although it is our warrant, it is a mechanism of democracy. So the these are we don't take a position on these. Citizen comes
forward and you know at the will of town meeting tries to get them passed. So, so for the for the public, is it it's 10 signatures to get on? >> Yes. >> Yeah. 10 10 signatures to get on the warrant >> up until FE uh the third week of February or second week of February for
this. >> Yeah. So, going forward, we will hope and sincere wish is that the open and closing will happen far in advance in the way it does in some other communities so that there's plenty of time for discussion and folks are well aware. But yes, it is I believe the
second week in February, >> right? We'll be sharing a timeline in June for when they're due for the December town meeting as well. Katie's going to come to a meeting in June to walk through the process. It will also be 10 signatures for the fall town meeting because they're both annual at this point. >> It used to be that it was 10 for annual
and I think 200 or some or 250 even for um a special town meeting. So, this is something that I think we can look forward to for all town meetings going forward. and we'll be able to share that timeline immediately following every town meeting going forward.
>> Okay. Um also article 14, the citizens petition which restricts open wood fires in the town of Swampscott. Um we've already even though we don't opine on it, we've already given our feelings on that. Um and then that brings us to the end of the warrant.
Okay. So, um, we have to vote to We do wait, we have to vote to agree to ex >> electronically >> electronically sign so that, um, you all don't have to show up to Shannon's office tomorrow to sign it. >> So, I will take a motion to allow your
name to be affixed to the warrant. >> Motion. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I Okay. So now that we have the ability to do that, um the next item will be for
us to go through post election to determine who will um speak at town meeting and um I nominate Doug for all articles. >> Do we need to do that tonight? >> No, we don't need to do that tonight because there'll be um there'll be more people actually.
>> Although I think the women will be doing the omen's work since they will have just got here. I mean hopefully some of them will um It's over. >> Doug still. >> Doug, >> I won't argue with that. >> All right, we are gonna go back to the
lease because we skipped over that. Um, >> so going Yes, please. >> Do you want me to do Okay, so there was back and forth last week about insuranceances. The final draft got to uh the proponents at 12:42 today. Um, so
I just want to highlight things in here that were, you know, sort of either changes or things that were open in the draft that originally uh went out as part of the electronic document. Um, one is section 7.3, which is extraordinary repairs. Just one second.
Let me just Can you say that again, Nick? >> Section 7.3 extraordinary repairs is one I wanted to highlight. >> So this is the differences between the the form lease that was attached to the RFP versus what was negotiated. >> And so on extraordinary repairs, there
was a question around if an a repair knowing that we have said explicitly there will not be capital money spent by the town. Uh was there an opportunity to say acknowledging sort of the condition of the property that is there a number at which we could enter into discussion
whether it's around abatement or even uh to terminate if it's near the end of the lease? Um if it if >> say that again what number you're looking for >> 7.3 >> 7.3 in >> page seven >> the document. >> Thank you. Um, >> yeah. >> So, the number that we landed on was if
a repair an estimate that they provide to us for a repair that's beyond $30,000, there's an opportunity to have a discussion around potential abatements, but also if it's in the back end of the lease and there would not be an opportunity to make up that difference in any way that there is the opportunity
to have a discussion between the town and the proponent to say we will mutually agree to terminate. And this is again an acknowledgement of the fact that we are very clear that we are not spending any dollars and also just to be reasonable to someone that's coming into
a space uh and understanding some of the risk that they're taking on especially as you get to the end of a short-term agreement like that. >> Where does it say the end >> 7.3 >> at the end? >> Where does it say the end of the lease? >> The sole remedy in the case of extraordinary care being required at the
premises shall be to terminate this lease by giving written notice to the town. Is that what you mean? No, I was understanding Nick to say that this only would pertain if it was towards the end of the lease. >> That was that's his editorial that's the editorial comment. It's the idea that if
there was an extraordinary repair that's necessary in the last two, three, six months that exceeds this number that we're not going to hold them to continue to operate when we're saying we will not fix it. Um, >> okay. Okay. But the way this reads, doesn't this give them that
Ouch? >> Yes. >> Any time during the lease? >> It's not limited to a time frame. It's I mean, the whole lease term is only >> 26 months. >> 26 25 months at this point. >> Decreasing.
>> Okay. But so three months from now, they could be in there and there could be a big issue that happens and they could say, "Never mind. I want to get out." so long as it's over $30,000. >> Okay. But that was not in the RFP. >> No, it was not in the RFP. It was a
discussion that we had as part of the negotiation. >> But what was in the RFP and what we've discussed publicly is that we are not going to capitalally in improve any of the property. Right. And so like
they want to cap their liability. >> No. Well, then the answer is then they don't they don't enter into a lease. I mean, potentially, right? I >> mean, is that what
>> I mean, this is >> is this something they're insisting on? >> Yes. And they had requested a lower number. We started a higher number. This is closer to our number than theirs. >> Compromise.
They're moving into a space that, >> you know, >> we all acknowledge has >> we acknowledge the but that's just the point, but everyone's known that all along. 30,000 seems pretty low. I mean, I think anyone that's heard about the place would guess >> that seems like a pretty high likelihood
that something for $30,000 going to happen there. >> I don't know that. >> Well, I think this is it. Sorry, Nick. >> No, go ahead. I said it says uh so this it shall not include an ordinary or normal day-to-day maintenance or repair or upkeep to any work that is necessary as a result of like them operating the
premises. >> So it's not just like the HVAC works on day one and then it stops working you know six months in. It is like the roof collapses. >> Can we stop using that as an example? >> I mean we could but I mean what do you want to >> No, I'm just I'm being facitious. like
say the I like I think it's meant for an extra extraordinary repair, not the maintenance day-to-day maintenance of >> But what does normal day-to-day maintenance mean? I mean, what how do you how do you qualify that? That could
be anything, right? I mean, the HVAC goes in the middle of summer and nobody wants to go in there because it's 100 degrees. Is that does that fall into that category or no? Does it have to be the roof falling? Like what kind of parameters do we have? It's just
day-to-day maintenance. What does that mean to me? I mean, that's that's how I'm reading it >> that is necessary. Any repair work or upkeep that is necessary? I mean,
we said asis. To me, that is it. that I I I'm not comfortable with this at all. It gives them an out. It gives them a big out. And then if that does happen in a month or two months, then we did all of this
work for absolutely nothing. >> But if we don't sign the lease, we've done all this work for nothing. >> But I don't think that's I don't I don't think that's the intent here. I think the intent is to make a sound a sound business agreement that benefits both
this company and the town. I'm not looking to benefit this company. I'm not to be quite honest. I'm looking for the best interest of this town and I am not so sure that any agreement is in the best interest of this town >> personally.
>> What What are the monetary benefits of this agreement? >> Rent. rent. Rent, utilities, >> property tax. So, $300,000. >> All $10,000 a month. >> $10,000. >> 10,000 a month. >> Okay. >> So, we're down to 26 months.
>> 26. >> So, 260, >> correct? >> Covering >> if it goes that long. Correct. Insurance >> covering the utilities. Utilities. >> So, what's the what's the savings annually for utilities? >> I want to say it's like 120 is the or between 100 120.
>> What did you say, sir? >> Between 100 and 120. Let's say 100. Let's lowball it. And the insurance. So 260 >> 100. And what's we insurance is always hard to like carve out because what does it cost us to ensure one vacant property? >> So they will carry the liability
insurance same as um >> Hawthorne. Yeah. >> Thank you. Um and we will still carry property insurance as we did with Hawthorne, >> but it will be less because it will not be vacant. >> Correct. So there is some sort of savings there that's not maybe
directly quantifiable. So it's $360,000 plus. Are they are they paying >> property tax? >> Property tax. >> Yes, that's triple net. >> Yeah. So wait, if it's triple net, why are they why why are we paying for insurance again? >> Aren't they Aren't they our carrier?
>> We we ran this language by our carrier. >> They provided their opinions. KP provided their opinions just as we did with Anony's. We will be carrying the property insurance >> and we we asked our
excuse I didn't hear >> okay >> I think that's I think that's common even in triple net leis I mean I can only speak >> my own personal commercial experience and I am not opining on the law right now but I I find it to be common that we
would still carry insurance even if the tenant was required to carry insurance. So you're looking at a benefit of 360 plus whatever the projected property I mean uh yeah property taxes which is I >> think the property taxes were were 153
>> it's very expensive >> I know I don't know >> 153,000 >> I'm trying to look it up >> thank you Patrick >> I don't recall >> so that would be 26 months of that is times two plus a So 153. So now we're
like 266 on top of the 360. So the benefit to the town is 360 and 266. I'm an attorney, but my math >> 622 >> 622ish if that number is accurate. >> So it's not triple net what you're
saying. >> And that doesn't include >> food and beverage. food and beverage, which >> I mean, we can't I >> you know, >> we have no projection to presuppose that those numbers. We have no idea if they even open their door, but this is what they're committed to monetarily
supporting the town, >> but they're not. If we look at that provision of 7.3 and none of that comes to fruition, right? The property tax was running about 150. So, you're right. >> Not 53. >> Well, I'm >> approximate >> 125 a month,
>> right? Yeah. Right. >> Well, just Danielle, just to make sure, right? I mean, I I I share your concern about this obviously, but it's not like they can just jump out for any reason, right? They've got to document that
something of in the right category costs at least $30,000 to give them the right to do this, >> which would not be hard to do with that building. I mean, let's let's be realistic, >> right? could probably get any person that is a contractor to go in there and tell you
there's 30,000 plus of necessary repair. I mean, let's let's just be honest. But yeah, to your point, Doug, they need to have that. I suppose one little word in here that you know I don't know what you've talked with them just the word
upkeep like that that seems that seems like a hole you could kind of drive a truck through in a way like if you all of a sudden want to get out of this like >> well this is shall not include ordinary wear and tear or any repair or upkeep.
So that's in our favor. >> Yeah. The language was drafted by our attorney with the number being what was negotiated >> negotiated. >> But that upkeep works in our favor. So we would want to keep that.
>> And I would assume what the argument would be for upkeep is when they entered the building in the ASIS condition that they then take on responsibility of upkeep for it it in his ASIS condition. Um, >> so
>> is that true? Like we're starting with the way it is today. They've accepted the way it is today. At least as as >> there's a rep and warranty that says that. So >> So Mr. Town Administrator, if we approve this tonight, this would go into effect
51 tomorrow. What's when do we when would the town start collecting? I I think if it was approved it would be subject to their signing first number one obviously. >> Um but you know as soon as we can come to a conclusion. So >> 51 is Monday Saturday like
>> no I mean >> it would literally this week >> it would be as soon as possible. Yes. >> Absolutely. >> I mean I have said this from the beginning. I'm sorry. Did you want to make any other points about that just that one provision you brought up? But what there other red line? Now the other it's David mentioned it. One is the
10,000 a month which would be 260. It's not um >> upront 300, >> right? It wasn't the 300 upfront um and then just highlighting I said the insurance the real one was liquor liability that's in here now. >> Yep. >> Um waiting for final feedback.
>> I mean Danielle I 100% hear you. I acknowledge that I hear you, but I am still of the position if we have to try and I I I know there is nobody else on this board who is more committed to
getting a RFP out for the Hawthorne property in its permanent condition than you. So, I mean, I think >> I've said it a million times. The two coupled together mean that we are putting ourselves in the best potential
financial position. True, there are outs. There are always contractual outs. Yes, there given the condition of the building, there may be you. I understand that you're less comfortable, but we have to be realistic
about the product we're marketing. >> Well, and also now that I read this a little bit more carefully. You know, the interplay between 7.3 and 7.1, >> right? I mean, if I'm reading it correctly, which I seem to have made a couple mistakes tonight, um that
it's in 7.1 detailing all the things that they are responsible for doing, right? So, it's saying that this $30,000 has got to be above and beyond these types of things that are in 7.1. Is that correct? which includes
>> okay that's a lot of stuff a lot of stuff yeah >> it's in includes building exterior the roof framing floor slabs exterior walls foundation mechanical system so all those things problems with those don't count towards
the 30,000 >> where does it say that >> that's what I'm asking it doesn't >> that's okay >> it doesn't no it include it includes that it's not exclusive of that because it says in the event of an extraordinary repair replacement in the event an extraordinary repair or replacement is required to maintain the premises in the
condition required under section 7.1. >> Okay. >> So, it's not it's not exclusive of it. It's inclusive of that. So, this is what your obligations are. >> And then on top of that, >> yes. So, I I want
>> I don't want you to not believe I don't want you to believe what you just said because I don't think it's accurate even though it helps >> I get it. Yep. >> Get it across the finish line. Yep. How do we deal with this quiet enjoyment? >> Quiet enjoyment is a very standard
provision in commercial leases. Um it's a like a legal vetted term. It's not. Uh, >> so if this facility has musical acts, >> it's >> does that cover that the neighbors that
are surrounding? >> Sorry, what section is it? >> 42. >> Oh, 122. >> I would assume it's a normal one. It's it's really our interference in the
lease. It is not >> we will not interfere in the leie's usage. Not that the the lei is actually going to be quiet. >> Right. Right. So it means they can pretty much >> So we won't interfere with their use. >> So they're allowed to have music and whatever is happening there.
>> Actually has nothing >> there's nothing we can do about it. Pretty much right. >> So long as they're within the parameters. What you would look to for something like that Danielle is the use provision. if there's any limitations on the use provision would allow the landlord the ability to say and the
permitted use is 51 and it's a restaurant and hospitality venue right and it says in no event shall the premises be used for any other permitted use so that so long as it's in restaurant and hospitality venue then that's
>> but that doesn't mean people can do whatever they want I mean we've had >> well I'm thinking of how we have people here complaining about >> little G with their music right for people across the street. So are we going to run into a similar situation? >> Now there's a compliance of law provision in section 53 in which the
acknowledges that they should use and maintain the premises in compliance with all applicable laws which would include any noise ordinances or anything like that. >> That's 52 probably a town rules >> issue an entertainment license and a liquor license. >> Correct. So there we are. >> Oh that's another >> and they'll still be coming before you all >> for that. similar to how you did it with
little G where that was the opportunity to >> have some leverage over time and use >> right but that was someone that's been there >> for how many years and this is an unknown right so we're not going to really know what we're approving or
allowing >> right but we do know what we've done with other places in that area >> yeah we just don't know what exactly is planned for this >> no idea I'm prepared to uh support the lease as proposed.
>> Do you want to make a motion to do so? Dad, >> I make a motion to approve the lease as proposed subject to the lei signing first. Second. >> Any additional commentary, questions?
Seeing none, all those in favor? >> I >> I >> opposed. >> I >> David. >> Oh, I'm I'm in favor. I'm sorry. >> You're in favor? Okay. So, it's 41. >> Oh, no. I was I >> Oh, you were I Sorry. I thought you were
No, I apologize. >> It was delayed later. >> 5. So, we are unanimous to support the lease, which is fantastic. Um, and you Doug and David won't enjoy this, but
Danielle and I, because you'll be gone, but Danielle and I will, um, hopefully be an agenda very soon to talk about a long-term RFP for Hoffman so we can live up to the promise that this is temporary and that we're taking action.
>> Yes, we are. Um, okay. So, that concludes all new and old business. The consent agenda, the request was made to move March 2nd and March 18 minutes. So, we will only be approving April 8th. And I have also
been requested to remove the Hawker and Pedaller's license for three Joseph Sanchez DBA Jane Austin's. So I will entertain and as so long as there's no additional amendments to the consent agenda, I will remove those two and take
a motion to approve the consent agenda, we will take the removals up separately. >> What is the procurement policy? Environmental environmentally preferred procurement policy. >> The approval of the town of Swanson Scott's environmental preferred
procurement policy by the last >> by recycled policy. Yes. Um >> be honest, I had not looked at this carefully. Um this is >> who who created this?
>> Thank you. >> It's just aated um I think they had a different name. It's a formerly by recycled policy. Oh, so we're updating our our formerly by recycled policy, which is what it exists as today, to become the town of Swanscott
environmentally preferred procurement policy. >> Um, >> is that the only thing that's changing? >> Yeah, >> I think maybe we remove this and just do a red line from the prior policy and we'll put it on the next agenda. That way we ensure that we understand what is
being changed. >> Um, okay. So we're going to now the consent agenda as amended is the minutes from April 8th number two for the pedallers license number four
uh and five and then we will take six at another time and we'll talk about three after we approve the consent agenda. >> Okay. >> Motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Okay. >> As amended. >> Second. >> All in favor? I
>> I >> Okay, so the minutes uh we just have some updates to make to them. So, um they're going to move on to the following agenda and six we'll move on to the following agenda, but Mariel had requested three come out if you want to just explain. Uh, so three, I was just
looking at this and it said here, um, it says here temporary food establishment selling tacos and maybe t-shirts at Fisherman's Beach. And I think my concern is where at Fisherman's Beach, what does this mean? Does this mean that people are going to set up
stands and we have >> It also says Iceman's Beach, >> right? So this is on public property. Are they paying for the public property? Um, what's the plan? What does it look like? And my concern also is that we
have a restaurant across the street from Fisherman's Beach and down just across a little dock side. And I don't want to be in a position where we have temporary food trucks or temporary food wagons or whatever they are interfering with brick
and mortar that are paying a lot of money in taxes. um and their establishments and somebody comes in and just rolls up on on private prop on public property and starts selling stuff. So
>> I I mean we did >> we not allow this with a hot dog vendor last summer, >> right? I think that looked pretty bad last year sitting in a sitting in the park and taking up space and you know we have we have the is it called the white
hen or richale? We have Rich Dales across the street and we have doc and we have dock side. So, >> you know, that's that's my feeling on that. >> I actually agree with Mary Ellen. We have Andreas Takaria at 646 Humphrey Street,
>> right? >> They pay they they pay for a liquor license. They pay rent. They I'm assuming they pay taxes. They pay meal uh certainly uh you know FnB FnB as well. um you know, they've been a member
of our community for a for a long time and to to invite um less expensive competition there uh where they don't have to where this new competitor would not have to pay that I I wouldn't be supportive of that. >> Um I
have we >> I feel like I mean they have three locations listed. If they were talking about just the farmers market, it would be one thing. >> Yeah. I'm a farmer I'm totally into a farmers market, >> right? >> You know, I limited time. >> I have two questions. If the hawker has
the farmers market as the event space, they still apply for space at the farmers market. Correct. >> Through the >> through the rec. And they pay >> so >> weekly. >> I would like to consider. >> So then they don't even need this, >> right? So why do they still need a hawker permit? Because not all vendors
at the >> You don't need a hawker permit to be >> but they're requesting to go elsewhere. >> Yes. Correct. So what the second piece of what I was saying is I think that maybe we should work on a policy for sale of products at the beach if that's what we all want. >> Right. Right.
>> Because that's what is like offending David and Mariel's senses is the beach because >> well it's specifically Fisherman's Beach right because Eisman's has nothing across the street. So yeah what would they be competing with >> right >> at right they would be up there. Well,
you know, I just I think >> you know, >> to me that's an untapped market, >> right, >> as a market >> and it's kind of a benefit to people that go to the beach, but eyesman's not fisherman's and not >> you know because communities with food trucks generally do identify locations
and do an RFP. This is it's too late. This these started coming up I think it was three meetings ago or two meetings ago >> that you first mentioned your concerns Mary Ellen, but it's something we could certainly develop for this summer. It would be very difficult to be completely frank, >> right? >> But with the idea that we identify
three, four or five locations in town and we ask for a number of respondents to say, I would like to be at these two. I'd like to be able to hear all five, you know, city of Boston towns and cities across the Commonwealth do this, >> especially in a beach town. So, it's I
mean, it makes sense to really to have a more formal process and policy in place. >> Like in Rivier, they work with DCR, but Ravier handles the process of who's allowed to be in which locations? >> Right. >> So, I I'm afraid to even say the same.
>> I'm I'm sorry. The only thing I want to say is that I want to do whatever Marielle and David agree on. That's all I want. That's all I want to end on here. It's like >> end on a high note. All right. Then I will reserve my commentary for my meeting with the town administrator this week. Therefore, we don't defer from the
high note we have happening right now. All right. So why don't we just we can't we can ask him to to modify the h or we can advise that we're not approving it as applied. >> Tell them to apply for the farmers market. How about that? >> Yeah. >> But we certainly will cons like you
there's we're very welcome town. It is not that. It is more the location. >> For example, >> the ice cream truck doesn't get a hawker, does he? >> Exit. No. Yeah, they do. >> They do. >> Do they? Well, I will. >> I've never seen >> I've never seen that individual. I
bought money and ice cream from him and I've never seen him come before me here. So, >> they should have been doing it if they haven't. >> They probably haven't. >> It's the same guy every time. >> I'm sure he charges as much as the taco truck. So, >> um >> he can speed away. >> Yeah. Right way. Yes. >> Drives off to Marblehead.
>> But, but just to that effect, I I I I agree. I think I think if done properly, food trucks at Eisman's could could be something. maybe some sort of collaboration with the beach club because they have part like their parking lot is not always full and if we could identify a a spot at the beach
club >> that's a little diceier I think but >> well I'm just saying let's look into it let's call I'd also ask a question >> I'd also like to make sure that we have conversations with our local restaurant tours just to see if they also want to put something out there or
>> well it would be an RFP process once you identify the location anybody could answer the RFP so that would we wouldn't have go >> anybody with a car. >> Yeah, we could in advance say this is what the town's >> thinking about doing. >> I don't sell anything. >> You have the ability to >> my own meatballs
>> propose a time frame >> that you want to participate and it doesn't have to be for the whole season either, right? It could be >> like three months out of the year. >> No, I mean like it could rotate. Isn't that also possible? >> This could be a very big potential. Yeah, I mean the the city of Boston
rotates which locations you get on which days or which weeks like you there's not one person that is in one place. >> See how this can benefit here, Nick Connor. >> So that helps out the local business because you don't have Well, I mean they did complain actually when we were when we talked about 350 that that would be
an issue but a premium on this. >> We can we can think about this further and please let Mr. Sanchez know it's not that we don't want to enjoy his food. Please come >> t-shirts or whatever else you wanted to sell.
>> Um, okay. >> Is everybody okay then moving on to select board comments? >> Who would like to start? >> Doug, >> I'll start.
Um, so I've been waiting for like a week to honor Mr. Gishman. Um, get comfortable everybody. No, just kidding. Um, so David's time in the select board, you
know, predated me by three years. So I encourage uh others to add in. Um, but I think your six years here on the select board, David, have been u momentous. Um there have been a number of things
that have happened in this town that uh I know you have been very central to and uh as as have many many other people. I'm sure you'd be the first one to um uh give others credit, but uh the fact that
we have um a new elementary school here, I know that you were highly highly involved in that effort. um maybe part of your select board efforts, but uh more broadly than that, uh the fact that we have major open
space acquisitions uh over the course of your tenure. I know you were very very central to those efforts. Uh the fact that we have uh veterans housing um on its way. um
uh I know you were a cornerstone of ensuring that that uh happened uh as faithfully as possible uh to the veterans uh wishes and uh I know another thing that you're very proud of is I
think uh the work that happened in uh bringing the police out of uh fire out of civil service uh and what that's enabled us to be able to do in terms of our recruitment efforts. Um, you know, there are probably a
million other examples. Uh, I know that you are the one that brought uh the CPA to my attention. Um, and it was only by virtue of the fact that you were doing so many other things that you were looking for some other uh chap to um
help um bring it forward. So, you deserve uh I'm not not really sure whether or not that would have happened uh were it not for you. And um I think you know while it's been extremely difficult at times, I think you have uh
tried your best to uh uh ensure that we were all um uh what's the right way to say it? uh adhering to the rules. Um, you know, I
know that uh that will be a somewhat provocative comment. Um, but I don't mean it to just be provocative. I mean it to say that you were willing to uh enter the fire in sometimes uh sometimes getting it right, sometimes maybe not.
But um you were willing to try to uh really see through to the truth and uh I you know highly respect uh you for that. Um, but certainly most of all, I really
really appreciate the fact that um, you helped show me the ropes. Um, and uh, carried forth on a lot of um, uh, efforts that truly are helped transform this town uh, for literally
for decades. um the the work that I've just rattled off here as well as many other things are going to help thousands and thousands and thousands of kids come through that elementary school uh you know play at uh Archer and Hawthorne and
uh oh not to mention the hotel um so um you know it's just amazing to think of what your efforts are going to do for so many people here in town so thank you very Thanks D. >> I have other things to share for the
broader group. >> So I'll do it now. Um >> I am really grateful to all of you. Um it has been an incredible honor to serve with all of you. I think uh you know going through some of those things that
David uh you know have played a huge role in but uh you know the fact that despite uh all of the hubhub that we've created along the way uh there's been an enormous amount accomplished I think that is the somewhat surprising thing
for people that uh might spend their time you know just having fun on uh social media um is that despite all this like incredible progress on the hotel uh
on veterans housing on the CPA just in the last three years even um the climate initiatives the passing of the climate action plan all that we've done on specialized energy code this board has been unanimous and moving forward all of
those things um in in that regard in supporting the climate action committee Uh the you know veterans housing I think is just the beginning. I mean we're putting basically almost a million dollars a year away in the CPA and you've just split that up in thirds.
There's a lot of money there in the future for future affordable housing, historic preservation, more open space. Um it's uh you know I could go on and on about you know all that we uh have
keeping the budget lid uh as tight as we possibly can while still respecting the services that the town uh deserves and needs. So I think that is um it's it's pretty wild to kind of have that frame of you know everything that actually
happens in a couple years. Uh so I really uh appreciate all of your uh uh friendship and colleagues and push back um and everything that came along the way. And I extend that to people that
are on committees. Uh you know I think uh you know Liz Smith gets the award for most attendees attendance at select board meetings uh which is really you know incredible. you know, Katie's trying to, you know, catch up. Um, but,
uh, you know, that's really that's real dedication. Uh, and to so many other people that serve on so many committees, the town staff, Patrick, probably you amongst, you know, above anybody, uh, frankly, you've been at more of these
meetings and provided us with incredibly sober, straightforward, uh, advice, uh, that's, you know, just critical. Um, so and you know so many other people in town uh that deserve so
much credit. So, uh, I'll try to keep it not from going on and on and on, but just very grateful. >> Thanks, Doug. >> David, >> I'd like to go last if possible. >> Sure. I wouldn't mind that, Danielle.
>> Um, okay. So, in true Danielle fashion, I don't uh have anything prepared. Um, but I always speak right from the heart or the horse's mouth, whatever you want to call it. Um, Doug, I have such a a new not newfound
appreciation for you, but um, way more appreciation for you now than I did possibly at the beginning of my term. um your ability to mediate and meet in the middle and find compromise has been a really welcome change on this board
and there is so much to your credit. I don't I it's a a very long list that we would be here all night and um I to say I valued your part participation and ability to really kind of heard this group of cats um on many occasions is is
saying very little but so I thank you. I learned a lot from you. I really appreciated all your effort and all the good things you've done and there are a lot of good things. Um, David Gishman, when I first got on this board, you were probably as eager to see me sitting in
this chair as, you know, you would be to get a really bad rash, right? I was the probably the last person you'd want to have sitting next to you for two or three potential years. Um, and you were nothing but gracious and welcoming to me
when I came on. Much to my dismay, did not anticipate that. Um, so kudos to you. And through the past two years of being here, we have gone toe-to-toe, nose tonose. I think I asked you to dance. I I think I said, "Grishman, you
want to dance on this one one day?" And we fought and >> Yeah. And and we disagreed on veterans, on former TA, on assessors, on you name it, right? And it is one of my biggest accomplishments
that I can easily say after fighting with you, I can still look at you and share candy with you and trade with you and see you on the street and say hi to you and you do the same back to me. And there is a certain level of appreciation for that that is really second to none.
So I appreciate always having that good relationship with you. And you know, as much as we disagree, you've done a lot. You've done a lot of good and smart things and you had a lot of very valuable lessons to teach me and everybody else on this board. And you
know, I was really really glad to work alongside of you and um I really appreciated everything you did. it. I really do say from the bottom of my heart to be able to look at somebody and argue and disagree and then at the same
time have the respect for them to be congenial and you know turn the page and know that it's not personal and it's really just a matter of disagreement and we can still be friends and you know see each other around town and there's you know no time lost. So, thank you for
that and thank you for all that you've done. And uh I know I will attribute every beer garden to you and every act of fun social recreation in this town that didn't exist before you to you. Um and I know a lot of people that are very grateful for that, too. So, but that's
the small stuff, right? Um but again, thank you. It was it's been a pleasure. >> I think it's all been said. >> It's all been said. Nothing from reports. You're always good for reports and committees. >> My guys just left. >> Oh, okay.
Um well, I will um give David the request to go last. I think it's it's fitting you gentlemen are going out together. Uh you've spent a good part of my tenure on the board trying to communicate with
each other and be unified and execute on that unification. And that is really quite important to how this board understood things and moved forward and got to the other side of things. Um, you know, I
agree with Danielle. We didn't always agree, but there is something to be said for showing up through the good and the bad and showing up in the way that you both show passion, although is different, is equally
important. Um, Doug, you have mediated through some of the most complicated situations that the board has been in in recent years and I thank you for being a sounding board for me to try to get through some of those
situations because it's not been easy and you've always picked up my call. I appreciate it. Um, and David, my call to my calls to you have not always been pleasant. I am the I will I have
criticized I have asked you know for you to give grace and take the high road and you always tried and I think that that is all I could ask and that is all I continued to ask of you
and you always continued to try to give that to me and for that I am very grateful and appreciative. on top of all of your other accomplishments, we had the relationship factor, you know, like that's the elephant in the room that
we're all tiptoeing around. >> And despite that, we still got so much accomplished. It almost makes me annoyed because if we didn't, how much more could we have? But that's a conversation for another day. And I just want to say
thank you to you both for your service to a town. And thank you to your families for their sacrifice for the service to the town because I will be the first to acknowledge that is the the biggest piece of this is the amount of time and energy you both gave because you
wouldn't have run if you weren't going to is a toll on your families and it is 100% a sacrifice you make for this community that goes pretty much un noticed in a normal
situation. from a normal town member, but as a sitting board member with you, I acknowledge and appreciate that. And I hope your family is listening and watching too to know that I acknowledge and appreciate them for that. >> Thank you both very much.
>> If my kids are still watching at 10:04, um I'm going to be pretty uh pretty upset because tomorrow time was 9:30. >> Um so so many people I want to thank. Um, but I want to start with the voters. Uh, they elected me twice. Uh, thank you.
Thank you for your trust in me, uh, to bring a commitment to community um, to Swampskit. Uh, you know, as as as Danielle mentioned, uh, you know, in 2019, I got involved, uh, with the town uh, heavily bringing, you know, beer
gardens uh, to to town. Um, something that hadn't been done before. um really wasn't given any guard rails or really any anything and uh it was just, you know, thrown into the deep end. Uh figure it out. Uh and
we did and as a result we have a we have a much more a much better uh town uh as a result. Um not without some hiccups and some some things that we can improve on, but uh but it really was something that that really brought a lot of joy to
uh to to our residents. Um, you know, and really time flies over these these last six years, you know, when you're getting things accomplished. Um, and it was a pleasure to serve on behalf of all 15,000 residents of Swampskid. And next, I want to thank town staff. Uh, thank
you for working with us and on behalf of the board to make Swampskit a great place to live, work, and play. We have such a dedicated group of women and men working for the town. And just know that I I appreciate all of your efforts and energies and hard work each and every
day. And even if you don't hear from me or you don't hear from uh the board on a daily basis, please know your work matters and is very much appreciated. And you know, I didn't have the chance to to thank uh many of my former colleagues. I happen to miss these last
meetings because my wife has me traveling all over the the continental United States and and the world uh at times. But um you know I certainly want to thank the former colleagues that I served with Neil Duffy Peter Spelios Paulie Tickcom and the junior senator from Arizona Don Hos um I miss you buddy
miss you Don also want to thank my current colleagues we've had some some difficult meetings uh last week was tough um last you know last couple of uh couple years have been uh we we've been difficult we've done we've done difficult things we've had difficult
conversations we haven't agreed um you know, but it's it's my hope now that with our new town administrator, the support of the board, um the chaos of uh the last few years has been reigned in and that we can we can get on with the
uh with the business of the town. So, thank you to uh to each and every one of you. Um and then last, but certainly not least, I want to leave you with just a thought about change that needs to be made. Um my opinion just regarding town
council especially real estate matters um town council in my opinion is insufficient uh and should be replaced and while we may not directly save money in legal services we can avoid a number of outcomes which may be negative uh
which include but are not limited to the commate from the veterans project. We can avoid the need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of a UYU settlement which may have been mishandled and we can avoid the need to seek town meeting approval multiple times for Archer Street land
acquisitions because information provided in the warrant was incorrect just to name a few. Town council does things some things very well but real estate in my view it does not and what do you know we have much in the way of real estate happening today and as such
it's my opinion my strong opinion my professional opinion that we need change and we likely needed it yesterday um but today is our last meeting um you know just a big thank you to Doug uh
Doug I will always remember your um your proficiency with markers colorcoded um your organizational skills uh your ability to mediate um and just your real your real uh your willingness to be the
uh the great compromiser the Henry Clay of of modern day um you know so I do think uh I think those skills came in came in handy >> um and certainly uh you know the CPA is a is a legacy that you that you leave
us. Um, and you know, thank you. And you know, I I do believe that we're going to see some incredible things as a result of those efforts over the next uh the next decades uh to come. Um, one of the things that I would like to see, uh, you know, Marie Ellen had the, uh, you know,
had had all the, uh, all the all the Eagle Scouts, um, posted on the board, uh, and posted. I would like to see the names of everyone who served on the select board within the town of Swampskit to be, uh, to be posted
somewhere in town hall. I think that would be uh, a great tribute and honor and something where, you know, Doug can come back and and shuffle in in 20 or 30 years and see his uh and see his name. Uh and and all of us and future
generations and previous uh select board members can come and and and and see their name and point and say, "Hey, this is, you know, this is what I I spent three years, six years, nine years." Um in some instances decades, uh serving the town. I think that would be, you
know, a small token for past and future um select board members. And just a reminder, um, good luck to everybody running in the election tomorrow and I encourage everybody to please make your plan to vote. Polls open at 7 a.m. and stay open till 8:00
p.m. Everything at Swampscott High School. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, um, if there's nothing further, entertain motion to adjourn. >> Could I could I just add one thing? >> No, you can't. really quick.
>> I I think it was actually Marielle and Diane. Your names are already hanging in the old select board meeting room. >> There's They're all up. >> We It was one of the first things I did. They had been waiting in Dian's office to get up and we had it put up in the first couple of weeks. We do need to
update your your name cards, but it for that exact reason, we put it down in that room >> because that had been prior a meeting here where where you all were doing the work on a on a weekly basis. So, it's a recognition that we completely agree with from the town staff side and and it's there for you to shuffle in whenever you'd like.
>> Awesome. Yeah. I just haven't been in that room. >> I know. >> Ever. >> So, I wanted everyone to know it was there because we got it up right away, but I I don't think we had talked about it other than letting you know. >> I think it was Peter Spilios's request. Peter did not want a chair. I think this I think that was Peter's Peter. >> That's correct.
>> Peter's thing. >> Okay. >> All right. So now I will entertain a motion from one of our outgoing colleagues to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I thank you.