Okay. Good evening everyone. We will begin. Uh it's November 19th. Please rise. Oh, we're being recorded. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. We will begin this evening with the town administrator's report. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Thank you. Uh first, um on the grant
front, we have some exciting news. We were awarded a $750,000 grant uh in support of the work that needs to be done to prepare for the Pine Pine Pine Street project um as it relates to the relocation of infrastructure. It was one of the uh projects that we were hoping
to get funding for. Um the preparations for town meeting have been continuing. Uh we'll be talking in more detail about it tonight towards the end of the agenda with you all. Um but the warrant was mailed out last Thursday. I'm also going to be with Fincom tomorrow evening um hopefully to answer some questions uh as
well as for tonight's discussion here. Um I mentioned last week um at our meeting on the capital program uh that we've been going through all the departmental capital requests. We're going to be moving forward with that plan and we'll be coming uh before you all in in the future. We'll also be
working closely with Ryan Hail and the CIC on that. Uh, as a followup on the capital planning meeting, um, I appreciated the thoughtfulness of both the preparations and the presentations of the staff and the questions. Um, I thought it was a good stepping off point for us to begin the pro the process of having these sort of quarterly
discussions. Um, and I also wanted to recognize there's on the staff side at least a lot of opportunities that we have for improvement. So, we're looking forward to how we can make future meetings even more successful. Um, getting into the departments a little bit, I wanted to highlight the effort of the DPW team all over town, but
specifically the Lax Wall installation that has occurred and the efforts to prepare Fisherman's Beach for the winter. Um, in addition, I have a little bit of news on the DPW front. Um, after a lot of deliberation, a lot of discussion, uh, we are going to be able to offer 10 additional spots for boat
storage at Phillips for this winter. Um, in addition to that, um, so the folks that are sort of next on the list for the lottery will be notified and will go down in order for, we understand some folks may have already made other, um, accommodations, but we will, you know, in future years be able to offer, I
believe it's 20 total. Uh, and that's what we plan to be doing. In addition to that, uh, we're going to look to do a little bit of a market survey to make sure that our fees remain both affordable and competitive for next fall. They won't be changing now, but we want to just take a look at what other municipalities in uh in addition to
private storage is doing as well. Uh just as sort of a a survey over time. We we haven't looked at that in quite a while. The senior b senior center has been really busy lately as well. They were part of a video that was highlight highlighting the intergenerational program they do with the high school this week. Uh and they've been
continuing to offering program that has the building, you know, absolutely buzzing every day. So, I wanted to recognize that. They were also kind enough to host the uh veterans breakfast last week uh which was also quite successful. Um on the recck department front, Charlotte has jumped in with both
feet on the space at the Clark. We began programming this week and we're looking forward to a busy winter. Uh in addition, over the last week or so, I believe the the FBI has been using it for training. Um so it has been a busy spot from from something that was maybe underutilized before and we're looking
forward to that continuing. Um, also with RC, I wanted to give a plug for the indoor Thanksgiving farmers market, which is this Sunday here at the high school from 10:00 to 1:00. Um, and then sort of a placeholder market calendars for the holiday parade and marketplace, which will be a town hall on the 13th of
December. Um, quick update on the HR front. Uh, we've had qualified candidates who've begun the interview process both for finance director and town clerk. Um, we're having phone screens then first round. We will decide after the first round of folks will be progressing from there. But we've we've
gotten a couple of good candidates in both uh both positions. We also completed the salary survey for the assessor position which I had mentioned uh at our last meeting I believe. And looking at the peers and super peers, we are somewhere between 22 and 25% the
behind the market. Um, so you know, I'm not sure if you would like me to come back with a slide or two that shows that or if we can if this can be something I could work with HR to to reclassify and make sure with Patrick that it's built into future budgets and then we can handle it for the rest of this year. Uh,
that's one thing that I didn't know if it would prompt any discussion or if you're comfortable with me moving forward, that would be absolutely wonderful. Um, anyone have any questions? That is that is the the TA report. I'm happy to answer any questions folks may have. Um,
and later tonight I'll I'll obviously have more information on the budget projections as well as uh participating in the discussion with you all for the warrant. >> I can't recall if this is uh before Nick or during your tenure, but I think we
all were supportive of a full-time assessor with a market rate adjustment. I mean, we've spoken about it. >> Yes. >> So, I don't think >> I think that is before. So, I appreciate that. >> I definitely wanted to give you a sense of what that looked like before we made any changes. So, I appreciate that and we'll move forward with it. >> I just want to make sure the comparisons
are equal. It's not we're not compar comparing a 34-hour work week to a 40-hour work week or 38 hour work week. It's >> just to make sure. >> To be honest, I I was going off the assumption they were all 37 because that's what most of the towns that I have worked with. So, I can double check that.
>> Okay. >> Uh and the the other outlier if you were to call through the towns that are identified regularly as our peers, I just want to call it out is Lynfield. their assessor is the chief assessor in three different communities and is richly compensated for that work. So
that is not one that we are including in this in this survey for that matter, >> but I'll make sure to to normalize that information as well. >> Great. Okay. Anybody have any questions, comments, concerns, phrase?
>> No, that's fine. >> Thank you. All right. Moving on. And the next agenda item is public comment. Uh we'll welcome anyone to the microphone for public comment. Please state your name and your address and we will limit public comment to three minutes. Uh participant please.
>> Hello. This work. Hello. Hear me? Okay. >> Uh hi Mike Keller, Pine Hill Road, um Swamp Scott. Um good evening. I'm really excited for the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I'm here to express um the interest I watched the last meeting uh and um the interest and excitement in
submitting an RFP for the Hawthorne property. My hope is to bring forward a concept that turns this space into a true community gem, something that residents and visitors can enjoy while the town works through the long-term planning and funding needed for the site's future. We have an incredible
waterfront location. With some elbow grease, creativity, and grit, the Hawthorne can come back to life as a vibrant destination, one that offers food, entertainment, family-friendly events, uh, concerts, flex flexible community space. This is a chance to show our residents what could be if
Swampscott embraces a lively, activated waterfront. I also want to address the recommendation from the Hawthorne Reuse Committee to re raise the building immediately. I believe that step would be premature. Replacing the building with a fencedoff crater at the entrance to our beloved town, potentially for 3
years or more, would be short-sighted. It would create unnecessary blight on one of our most visible pieces of property, and it would remove the opportunity for the community to use and enjoy the space in the meantime. A short-term activation is the smart and responsible path. It keeps the property
vibrant instead of dormant. It allows the town the breathing room it needs to thoughtfully plan and fund whatever permanent vision comes next. And most importantly, it gives our residents and visitors a positive, engaging experience on our waterfront rather than a shuttered lot. I don't want to get into
too many specifics of my proposal I look forward to presenting if it comes to fruition until the RFP is formally presented. But I can say this. I truly believe this interim solution can add value, energy, and pride to our town. It envoy it avoids unnecessary blight. It generates excitement instead of
stagnation, and it lets us make the most of one of Swampscott's most uh iconic locations while long-term decisions are made. Thank you for your considerations. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> we have one more in.
>> Hello, Joe Doulette. Elwood Road, Swampscott. Among other things, I'm the director of the Blue Big Band, which is Swampscott's community jazz orchestra. It's a program of the senior center and our holiday concert. We are doing Duke Ellington's Nutcracker Suite on December
14th at 2 p.m. And who cares if it's right when the Patriots are paying the bill playing the bills, right? Come watch some come watch some Ellington. Uh the members are community members. Uh we got 14 members now. It's a fantastic program. It's a short program. You'll be in and out of there in an hour. Um but
just come support it. It's $10 free for youth and seniors. And if you want more info, go to bluebigband.com. Thank you. And there's cards in the back if you want to grab one. >> Thank you, Joe. >> Nice card. >> Um Diane, if you would allow Mr.
Dementor to speak, please. >> Very good. Thank you. Go ahead. >> I'd like to address the issue of the pop on by the sea uh situation. This has now gone on three years. We can't wait and have a six-year process
to get this done. Somewhere or another, I believe this board has to find a way to greatly accelerate the process. And what this this last speaker that went before me said is exactly what I fear. everyone. Who wouldn't want to rent the
space for $2,000 a month? We've gotten $2,000 a month for three years and that's it from the operation of that restaurant. We can't afford to fool around with this anymore with the tax situation in this town. We're facing an
increase in taxes. We know it. We know we're going to lose some of that half money this year because the town just can't beat its budget. I can't urge you enough to move quickly adroitly. You've had a study committee.
You've had two and and finally you have a recommendation uh before you and I just don't think you can postpone postpone. It's very bad for the town and I I beg you do not put this off any
longer. Get it done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Deimento. Anybody else? Okay, seeing no additional public comment, we will move on to new and old business.
Uh we will still open the public hearing. >> I believe that we can I think everyone is here >> participating. >> Okay. Uh so we will um I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing for discussion and possible vote to consider
the approval of the transfer of ownership of an existing section 15 off- premises all alcohol license from Kasabal LLC at uh 646 Humphrey Street unit D Swampscott to I am going to butcher the
pronunciation of this >> Gan >> it's called Ganant >> Ganan yes >> corporation Second. >> Uh Doug is online so we will have to vote. Uh roll call. So um Mary Ellen >> I
>> Kate Doug >> I >> I am an I and you've all made the motion and seconded. So we the public hearing is now open. Um where shall we start? Go ahead. Hi. Um my name is Alex Bao. I
work at Democus Law Office in Lynn and I am representing the applicant. Um, also here on behalf of the applicant is Nita J. Patel who's the proposed manager of record on the license, 35% shareholder, president and treasure of the corporation and Samir Kumar Patel who's
the 65% shareholder um and secretary and director of the corporation. Uh, the applicant is purchasing all of the assets including the liquor license of Cass and Ball LLC doing business as Swamcott Liquor is already said located at 646 Humphrey Street, Unit D in
Swamcot. The applicant is going to continue the operating the business as it's currently operated. Same name, location, products. Um, the only thing we are requesting to be changed is the um permitted hours business. Um, we're
looking to get the full hours permitted by the ABCC, which would be Monday through Saturday, 8- 11, and then Sundays 10 to 11. Um, currently, uh, what's allowed is 9 to 10 on Monday through Saturday and Sundays 10 to 6.
Um, J Patel, the proposed manager of record, has experienced working in this type of store since 2021. She has a valid work permit. She's never had a violation. Um she's familiar with the ID scanners and ID laws. They will be using ID scanners
in the store. Um she is TIP certified and Samir Kumar Patel um successfully rents another uh liquor store in Newberry Port um and is also familiar with ID laws scanners um as well. So we are seeking approval of the license
transfer, approval of Nabin Patel's manager of record and approval of the change of hours. Okay, thank you. So for consideration for us this evening again it's a transfer of license. Um it would be a change in hours and then a
change in manager. >> Correct. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicants? >> Is is this the one we just did recently? >> Yeah, I believe Yep. You guys were just before us, right? Not you guys, but behind you.
>> This is just Was this just opened up? >> This is >> Okay. Anybody you have any additional questions, Ryan? >> No. Um I don't have any additional questions. I mean,
>> from the town um licensing perspective, have there been any issues with the current applicant? >> No. I mean the current sorry the current license holder. >> No no no issues. No outstanding fees or debts. >> Okay. >> The only issues there have been are request to change the signage because
there's excessive signage. >> The neon sign >> neon signs and then signs covering the windows signs covering the ice cooler. But those were all changed as soon as it was addressed. >> Okay. Great.
So, if there are no additional questions, then I'll entertain a motion to approve the change of uh transfer of ownership, the change in hours, and the change in manager. >> I do have one. What are the hours that
we have in other liquor stores? Like, I'm not really I mean, we did have resident we had residents that were commenting that were really against this last time. Um, it now it's changing hands within a few months. I'm really not I don't think I'm really feeling
great about extending the hours. >> Was it was there residents commenting against this or was it the um restaurant? >> No, it was >> residents that were talking about deliveries. >> Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if that was related to the restaurant
>> related to the bill and and selling liquor so close to the park that >> so what is and the other question I have is do we is this supposed to come in front of us twice or >> no
>> because of the change in hours is that what you're asking >> no because of the policy >> our policy is generally something comes in front of us twice >> okay >> once to review then once to approve Um I mean I think if there were direction for the
applicants that is probably helpful. So if if it is you know today we are interested in not having an issue with transferring the license but we have an issue with the hours and we have to come back and have a conversation about the hours >> or
were residents sent letters about this change in ownership? like did did residents have an opportunity to come down? >> Yes, we did publish an ad in the local paper 10 days before the hearing and um told them they could attend the hearing
for the transfer. >> Okay. >> Which is what they're under the law. >> Right. >> Right. >> I will say, you know, the only thing that does give me pause is being open till 11. Nothing is really open till 11
in Swap Scott. Yeah. Um, so that does give me a little bit of a pause, but but you know, I I certainly understand the the interest in wanting to do that. I'm really curious about um the change in the manager of record. Is that was that just a administrative decision or
because you guys were just here, right? I mean, it was >> Well, >> I think because of the change in ownership of the entity that's going to be holding the liquor license, the manager is changing so often like >> Right. I just wonder why it was done so soon after starting out. If there was anything you wanted to volunteer about
why. >> Well, this the seller is selling the business. So, with the new with the new business coming in, they have their own manager and their own employees that they're going to be using at the store, >> right? It it was just very quick, right? So, they just opened not even a year
ago, I think. So, it just seems like it was a quick change. >> Oh, I'm not I'm not sure about that business decision. >> Yeah. Okay. Can you >> should you come to the microphone? You want to speak? >> I can answer the question for that. I
have a family situation. They have elderly have to be taken care which is um that's why I took myself off to take care of the elderly parent. >> Okay. >> Thank you for that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that. Appreciate the insight. >> And I if I could just add one more thing
about the hours. The hours wouldn't be changing very much. Um the hours Monday through Saturday, we're just looking um to open um 1 hour earlier and stay open 1 hour later on Monday through Saturday and then on Sundays we would just be
open for a few extra hours. And I don't think the applicants plan on always being open all of those hours. I think with holidays, um deliveries, different things like that, they like having the choice and just the most hours possible approved on their license and then being able to make the business decisions. But
it wouldn't be a drastic change in the hours if that helps. >> Okay, thank you. That does help. >> I don't have anything else. >> So, I would be inclined to say yes without the change in hours. I would rather get through a year and then readress ours at that time.
>> Um, that's that's my feelings on that. >> Since this is a public hearing, we obviously need to entertain questions from the public, too. So, it looks like Mr. Domento's hand is up. So if you would authorize >> put it down >> unless it's up from prior.
>> Bill, you should be able to talk. >> Thank you. Uh my question is ours. I have no issue with the transfer of ownership or any of that. understand anyone has a right to sell,
but it's strange where the neighbors were so vocal at both the zoning board and the initial hearing that they're not there tonight. And I'm wondering if the statute requires them to be noticed by
by a letter by mail as to this. And I'd be a little reluctant to approve any hour changes unless you're absolutely sure the procedures were followed correctly. And uh what's the harm in waiting uh in
finding out if the neighbors were properly notified? It's a little strange. They were pretty vocal uh relative to ours and and the and what's going on. So, I I just speak out in caution uh that there's no real hurry
and I think you should check it out as to the hours. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Deimento. Um I I don't believe there's a requirement under the ABCC that that they be mailed
notification within any sort of radius um for these changes. I I don't think we've ever done that prior. So, um that would be something new that Doug, did you have a comment?
>> Yeah, that does seem like a combination of what Mr. Tomento said and what Mariana said that it would be reasonable to make sure unless there's someone there that I can't see that can speak to exactly who got what notice if it was just put in a local newspaper. I think
we all know that that's probably not necessarily reaching that many people. Um, so, uh, I'd be interested to know definitively if there are any other requirements. Um, but even if there aren't requirements that, um, you know, that liquor store is situated very much
in a neighborhood and it would be good to ensure that people are very much aware of what's happening. Yeah, I don't I don't argue the conclusion just the supposition that they have to go forward with any additional uh um conditions under the
ABCC. I agree that um we can certainly table the hours piece and we can approve the transfer and we could this is always something that they could come forward to again after a little bit more understanding on our side or um upon renewal. I think you guys can also
request a change of hours. Um, >> which is going to happen at our next meeting anyway, >> right? It's just around the corner. Um, >> kind of helps everybody. >> Yeah. So, let's So, so I'm happy to make a motion to approve the transfer of ownership and we'll table the the hours to >> and the change of manager.
>> Change of manager until Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. So, the motion on the table right now is to approve the transfer and the manager change and to um to not to approve the hours right now to to sort of see how it all settles. And do I have a second? >> Second.
>> Okay. And because we are again remote, Doug, do you want to go ahead and vote for us? >> I am also an I. >> You guys um are eyes also, just to be clear. I >> Danielle. >> Hi.
>> Okay, great. Um, so we um have just approved the transfer. Thank you. And the change of management, the next step will be go to I think it goes forward to the ABCC and then um we'd be happy to consider the hours at another time, but not tonight. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We have to close the um public hearing. >> So I'll take a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. Second. Um, >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Doug, >> I >> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you guys for joining us. >> Thank you. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. If >> I could just ask Nick if you wouldn't mind just seeing what the hours are for the rest of the liquor stores in town for the next when they come back just to see if they're similar so we know. >> Are the liquor licenses will they be
they will be on the next agenda or the next >> one of the next two agendas? We have them on the draft for the third, but they could stay at a final meeting of the third. >> So, I think because we'd like probably to see them twice potentially. We'll put them on the third >> and then
>> we also need an adjustment. Don't we need it? We need an adjustment on liquor lic and then >> or the holiday. >> Okay. >> Again, sorry, I'm distracted by what's happening in the audience. >> They're talking about the one day, right? Between New Year's Day.
>> No. >> Oh, sorry. What are you talking >> talking about the hours? Um, there are there are restaurants that have liquor licenses where they have to adjust their hours for New Year's for Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve. In the past, we've made adjust adjustments on specific days
like those two days. >> Correct. And Mazi's been away. >> We're going to do it on the third. >> Okay. She and I have been talking about that because there is a fine >> window between license
understand it fully but >> All right. Well, we will understand it fully next. >> We'll understand it fully on that. >> I just don't want to have to be called to another meeting. >> I agree. We So, let's ensure that that's on the third so we can review. >> Yep. >> Okay. Moving on to update and discussion
on the town's financial forecasts and anticipated revenue and expenditures. >> Sure. You're all waiting with Beta for this. >> I love this. >> Excited. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Patrick, thanks for joining us again. >> I wasn't going to let him get away when there might be questions that I answer
for. >> I asked him to be remote and he came. So, >> kudos. >> Got to thank him for that. I think mine's cut off. Is yours cut off? >> What's wrong with it? Cut off. >> I think so.
>> It is in the print off. >> I'll just look at the screen. It's okay. >> I know. >> Okay, we can just go to the second slide. So this slide is meant to level set. I'm not going to read this off to you. I have some words to say, but it's to level set on the financial policies that
we're working within as we are creating these preliminary projections that we're presenting tonight. Um the idea here is that we're delivering this information to you as directed by the charter. Although I will acknowledge we are 4 days late and we will endeavor to be ahead of schedule in everything next
year um and for the rest of this budget season but we're we are ahead of where it was last year for a number of reasons. U the idea is that we want to provide you with the snapshot today. It's informed by our assumptions and our expectations. Um but it's just the initial early look. We provide you with
this information to review and to ask questions and I'll do my best to answer tonight along with Patrick and if necessary we'll get any further information we need from the team for you all. Um I then would hope to work with Katie to be on the agenda in the second meeting in December so that we can get some feedback at that point
after you've had some time with this. Um and at that point I'd love to hear from you all about the goals and priorities and objectives that you have as it relates to the budget and sort of where we've given you this this snapshot. Uh the second meeting that I'm discussing here is where the staff side can learn and get further information and
guardrails so that as we're digging in to really have these deeper discussions with department heads that it's reflecting the feed the initial feedback from you all. Um so that we're sort of each working hand inand towards the goals that we would like uh early in 26. Um so I don't want to read this all to
you but it's the financial policies focus a lot on revenue as opposed to expenditure. making sure that we're conservative and realistic about how we plan and then if things turned out more optimistically, it ends up being a question for us to to find new ways to
um to you know use those resources. But these are just some of the highlights. The local receipts we don't exceed 90 90% of the year prior grant revenue we don't build around. We're trying to determine how sustainable it is. And then obviously the the top one is the big one. uh we focus at this early stage
on the 2% per year um plus you know 425,000 of new growth. Um we are over that for the 5-year average but we still cap it at 425. So again we're being conservative and thoughtful about you know how we plan at this early stage. Can we go to the next slide?
>> Actually I think it's the fourth. We can just go the next one just to that. Yes. So, this is again a snapshot so that everyone is on the same page. This is the maximum allowable levy with Prop 2 and a half. It is not how we build the budget, but I want to make sure everyone sees it. I know looking
back over time, this has always been part of the presentation so that folks can understand where we are versus where we what we used to plan. Um, this shows the 2 and a half% uh growth. I mean 2 and a half% increase in the property tax. Again, it caps the 425 um new
growth and it includes obviously the debt exclusions which go into the maximum maximum allowable level because they have been voted on by the community and over time we're paying those down because those are priorities that you know the community decided to fund. We can go on to the next one.
So this is Yeah, that's right. This is the projection um based on the policy. It's the 2% uh increase in property taxes plus 425 in new growth. And as you can see, the number is a bit lower, but it's important that we follow the policies as we begin this effort in the projection
and planning. And so, as you can see on the bottom right, that is the estimated excess levy capacity at the very bottom right. And above that is the 2% plus new growth. uh our the levy number for that we're working from. We
can go on to the next slide. So at this point in this early stage, as I said, we want to be very conservative. This slide is what we're planning for state aid, which is flat. Um there's a number of factors that coming into play both at the state and federal level that we think means the flat assumption makes
sense and is worthwhile. Uh, number one, at the state level, there's a hiring freeze and they're talking about incentives to separate employees, whether early retirement or just to separate. Um, and then when we get to the federal level, which obviously funds a significant portion of state government and by extension us, it's
very hard for us to forecast that there will be increases of any kind or to understand exactly where that's going to land. So, we're just carrying forward a flat number with the hopes that we do get that. And again, this will be a discussion uh if that were to change when the governor's budget and the legislature acts, which is something legislature usually wouldn't be acting
until April. Um but we would have a better sense of that when we're getting into the discussions in February and March. Uh but right now we're keeping it flat so that we don't build off an assumption that something might be there when there's really nothing that we can look at that would make us anticipate that it will be there as of right now.
So just wanted to again highlight how we're getting to where we are. Can we go to the next slide? I know this is tiny on the screen. It's easier probably for people at home to see this. But again, local receipts is, you know, as with other revenue, there are um financial policies around what we
can plan for and what we do plan for so that we are not being overly optimistic and looking through rosecolored glasses. Um they're you know running down the list here as you can see. Is there a technical problem? Well, two people have raised hands, so I'm
wondering if there is a technical >> Can we go to the teams just to see if there's a technical issue? >> Can they not see it? >> Yeah, the slides aren't the slides aren't showing online. >> Okay. Thanks, Doug. >> Thank you, Doug. >> Did we try to share again, Diane?
>> Yep. It would be that. Yeah. Second one there. >> Doug, does that Can you see that any better? >> Yes. >> Okay, great. D, if you wouldn't. Yeah, perfect. Okay. So, with local receipts,
as with the others, we're looking at conservative projections that are percentages of prior years or averages. We're not trying to be overly optimistic to look at any particular local receipt and say that, you know, we can build a a budget strongly around that. Um, you know, there's different things you can
highlight. The building department, as an example, is doing well this year. Um, the, you know, over time, we again don't want to build a budget over something that is higher than that. Um, I cannot see either.
>> What are you looking for? >> I just wanted to see if there were any other ones that I should highlight other than that. But in in in reality, we're we're planning a budget around things that are 85 and 90% of prior year budget or their historic actuals uh averaged over 3 to 5 years. Can we go to the next
slide, Diane? Because this is really the one that we'll want to talk about probably. Keep going. So here looking at the estimated expenditures which is part of what is requested by charter and has not always historically been presented at this time
but I wanted to make sure that we had this in front of folks now so that we could have a thoughtful discussion. I want to caution as we review this that this is a first pass. uh we're not yet at the point where we've gotten guidance from you all and others in the community about level service versus level funding versus the priorities. So, we're
starting at a point to to prompt the discussion. I know that the teams on both with both the town and the school are very cognizant of the limited resources we have available. Um we're we're looking at this uh projection to include things like salary reserves, but
they are projections and and those sit in general government because we have a number of open contracts with ongoing negotiations. It also includes salaries intended to support the town hall resources across finance assessing and town clerk that we've discussed over time. So that's also in there now. Um
and again open to discussion. Um as you can see in the bottom right there is a projected deficit and it is I want to caution it's a projection. We will continue to refine this as we go forward through this discussion and through our discussions with the department heads.
This is our best informed estimate of where we are today as we look at this as a snapshot. Uh I want to acknowledge that there's open contracts. There's a solid waste contract that is expiring at the end of the year and healthcare costs that we can only estimate right now. Uh
healthcare is an example. We have not yet gotten any guidance from GIC. It has historically happened that they've provided a range in December, but we may or may not get that information in December. it might be later in the year and later in 2026 when they actually
provide uh what the number will be as we get better information in each of these lines. We will continue to refine this as we go. This as I as I said this is a living document but uh is a snapshot but for Patrick and I it will be a living document as we're having discussions with department heads. We're hearing
about priorities, goals and objectives from you all and we're getting more certainty around contracts that are open um both for services and for employees. Um, I hope this is a good jumping off point. I apologize for those that at home that didn't see the first slides. Um, I'm happy to talk to anyone that's
interested at the office as well. I just want to put that out there. It's a open door as I've said, but I'm also happy to take questions tonight and hope that I'll be able to answer them or lean on Patrick to get a little more color if I'm not able to directly. >> So, let me just say what everybody is
probably thinking. The way I'm looking at this right now, it says a projected deficit of two million, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> 2.3. >> Thank you. >> Wanted to make sure I could actually see. >> And to highlight healthcare, we are
carrying a number, but it could be not optim, you know, we could be too optimistic. I don't think I think we're going to be relatively close. Uh there are open contracts across public safety and town hall. Um, and the solid waste collection is one
that, you know, I think we've traditionally been in the 3 to 5% range. >> Mhm. >> You know, I think what other communities are seeing are up to 8% in increased costs in solid waste. The solid waste advisory committee is doing a very deep
dive on both what we want, what we would like to have, what we need, and the best ways to save money. Um, and one of the things that's been discussed, I know I haven't been in those meetings every week in the last two weeks, but prior it was, you know, even do we look at extending for one year at a as small an
increase as possible so that we can fully vet out any and all options. Uh, but those are significant drivers that will be sort of, you know, they'll have to be built in and they're not entirely under our control where they land. So, I want to just highlight those. But yes, it does show a deficit of 2.3.
So Nick, would you characterize this as generally not only on the revenue side but also on the expense side as you're taking a conservative approach in each of those areas? >> So revenue side is conservative. Yes. This I want to make sure that we're both
using conservative the same way. Um this is I don't think um >> you're assum you're assuming higher increases than you would really expect at this point. >> No, I don't think that I'm being as conservative as I could be in that
regard. I think on the operations the salary and expense lines where we can we are you know sort of holding the line that has been held repeatedly uh for percentage increases. The general government as I said is where right for
now we hold salary reserves. Um so that's one that is bigger but in addition to that as I cautioned over time when we discussed um sort of market adjustment for senior level staff that we need to bring on my you know sort of uh visceral reaction
to asking you all for support of that is it means that my baseline and maintenance will be higher than it has been historically. So there's it it is not the most conservative if you're saying you know the most realistic and only
option. Um I think we're being aggressive in a way that we can work very hard to meet in many of these lines. But there are some significant drivers that we don't have control over. Um particularly the three that I mentioned that could have a
significant impact depending on where they land. So Nick, just a quick question on culture and recreation. Culture would be library. Recreation historically has sat outside of the general fund in a in a revolving account
as at least for for salary. Correct. >> For salary. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> they still have a line item in the budget though. >> Yeah, we have there's still a line item in the budget >> for life lifeguards and other activities that the entire town >> Got it. Got it. Okay. >> It's a it's a small number.
>> Okay. Okay. So I I just I I just wanted to make sure that that was that that was allocated properly and I just I I just don't have that detail. So >> Patrick, could you help highlight what falls under that for me, please? I apologize. >> Yep. So the culture and recreation
category includes the library department salary and expense and it includes um salaries for lifeguards and certain expenditures of um the wreck department that are outside recreing such as fourth of July lifeguard supplies community
events that are um funded through the general fund. >> Thank you. >> Thank you >> Patrick. Um what as far as investment income you have that dropping down >> that's a >> on the prior side.
>> Yeah. Do you want that's in the revenue right or local receipts? >> Local receipts. So you can go to local receipts. I have a couple questions in that category. >> That's the impact of the market and interest rates in general. Is that correct Patrick? >> Yes. >> Thank you.
And uh miscellaneous recurring actually I don't care about that. Miscellaneous non-reoccurring >> you mean what has sat in there in the past under the historic? >> What's the what's the detail on that?
>> I can speak for FY25 which is the most recent actual on on the report. There's a million dollars in there that we received from National Grid related to energy incentives for the new school. Obviously, in context of the forecast, we don't assume any
miscellaneous revenues for forecasting because they're not guaranteed, >> right? So, I you know, on that money on the national grid money, I know we really didn't want to be counting that money because we wanted that money invested back into infrastructure so that we could get additional additional
grants. But last year, because of the major FUPA on $440,000 not being accounted for, we had to put we had to use that money to balance out. So, what is left as far as what's coming in
from National Grid? Do you know? >> I don't have an exact amount because I don't believe we have an exact amount from National Grid. That's something that Max coordinates with them on. I believe there's some additional incentives that will be expected, but I don't have timing or amounts,
>> okay, >> from him. >> All right. >> Just to stick on that, I think we had this conversation a meeting or two ago. So that million miscellaneous non-recurring, that is the national grid money.
>> Yes, there are some other smaller items in there, but that would be the notable item I would call out. So, I thought for some reason when I I remember reading this, I thought we had about two and a half million coming in for that and it was staggered. It was we
got some last year and some this year and the only way to continue to get any additional money was to to reinvest into infrastructure like solar and things like that for national grid. But I I do remember that there was money coming after the initial money that we
brought in this year. So, if we could just look that up for a later time >> and circle back with Matt what he has in the hopper for energy incentives. >> Okay. And >> yeah, Mary Ellen, I think there were different categories though. Some was national grid and some were other other
incentive programs. >> Two. Yeah. >> Yep. There were two categories. One had to be used for school debt and the other had to be used could be used for anything we wanted.
But in our conversations, it was to use it for infrastructure to keep investing, you know, in infrastructure specifically around the schools and making them more energy efficient. >> We'll talk to Max.
>> Yep. Just get those dollars. Do you want to go back to the last slide again? Thanks. Now, can we just do we have any other questions on the Can you go to the expenditures one? Thank you. I didn't know if you all were done asking questions about this because we
bounced around. I just have a question on debt service. So, on debt service, the debt, you have the debt service pretty much in this flat. from your 25 actual to your
26 budgeted. Can you send us or can you circle back later and just give us a table of rolloffs? I can I just assure everybody that the number for debt service is pretty solid because
it's based on, you know, an itemized forecast of debt based on the five-year plan that was presented to town meeting. So, I feel pretty good about that number, but I'll caveat that we'll update that as we progress through capital plan updates ahead of, you know, having to finalize this budget. But that's the best number we have right
now. >> Can you um repeat again for us what your steps will be going forward on the budget timeline now? >> Yeah. Can you go to the last slide now? >> Oh, is that am I teeing you up? >> Yeah. Thank you. Great. Um so as I said we'll we'll be working with department
heads um in December and January but we'll also you know as I said we would love to come back before you for that last meeting of the calendar year to get just initial broad feedback goals priorities objectives because that will inform the discussions we have level service versus level funding you know
things like that um a meeting within obviously as I said tomorrow CIC also is uh going to kick off in a a more um intense way soon. Um but we will put together the preliminary budget for the end of January. The school department we
anticipate being complete with their effort um in February and we would be before you several times between now and then. Um both for feedback and presentations on where we stand in the process. I would absolutely plan to come before you with a separate agenda item,
not just in the TA report, as we get more information specifically about those large drivers that I mentioned. Um, because those are things that I want to share with you all as soon as we have them. >> And this is based on 2% not two and a half. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yes. It's all BA which is within the
financial policies. We are we're working within the policies um that are in place. Um and so this is to again it's a snapshot right now. There's some things that are still out there that are not um insignificant but as we get more information on those I will share with
you as soon as I can so that we can continue to make informed decisions and you can provide informed feedback to us um so what we come to you matches as best as possible your goals, priorities, objectives uh throughout. I would anticipate, as I said, I'll be before you with information about this uh or
I'll be asking you more than once um over time in addition to any update that I get to those significant drivers. >> Does that answer your question? >> It does. I think um one of the things I am cognizant of given last year's budget process is we
we sort of talked about an idea of maybe having you know department heads be more present alongside us as we understand some of the items in the budget. Um I don't know if that really is something that will come to fruition this year how
you see it playing out. you just want to take the information and present to us as you know the TA's budget and move on from there or you know in years past there were I think prior to Sean there were budget conversations where department heads would come in and sort
of >> yeah yeah I would be happy I'd be happy to spend time in January with that after we've had the initial internal discussions where we come and talk through where we are and again that for me that needs to be informed by some feedback in advance from you all so that we are focused
And I'm using these two because they're sort of big picture. It's not the only feedback I'm looking for, but level service versus level funding are two very different things as an example. Um, but we would want to know which which direction you want to be pointing us in so that we can be responsive to that. And then I I would be happy to have
department heads come in. We choose to have sort of the great big department head night. I I'll look at how you've done it in the past. I'm not familiar with the the customs and how it's been done here, but I'm happy to make sure that they are involved and they are answering the questions as well because
it's it's a recommendation that comes from all of our hard work together from me ultimately to you all. Um, and then the vote that you take is, you know, to put something before town meeting. So, um, yeah, I'm happy to bring department heads and others before you all and I'd be happy to work with you and others
individually to make sure that it's the right folks and it's not just, you know, police, fire, DPW, but we'll make sure everyone gets in front of you at some point. Yeah, I mean I just looking for feedback from the board if that is the direction we're asking Nick to go in or if >> I think that's the most collaborative
way to go about it and it really gives us an understanding of what you know as opposed to just reading line items on a budget. We're understanding from those department heads what's important, what's critical, um what might be a nice to have, what might not be, right? And really hearing it from the people that
do the work every day, >> right? So >> and certainly helpful >> if we were to go to talk to them with just this and this was all we all the discussion it would be no expansion no you know it's making sure you fit within what we have so if you all have questions from particular departments
about any particular expansion things that you've heard out heard about from the community things that someone has suggested we've wanted over time I think that would give us you know that would be a great forum to have those questions and it's not again not just myself and the folks in finance answering it's it's the ones that are doing the work in an
individual department. Absolutely. >> That's a great approach. >> I think it's hard uh to just I mean obviously we are each going to give direction you know you're looking level set versus level funded. >> There's exceptions to to any of that
right you say like okay obviously we want to be level funded but then we have these carveouts right or vice versa. Um, so it would be more collaborative, I agree, to have that conversation well in advance so we're able to right fix fix all the issues before we get to a point
where we we can't >> and and my my goal in doing asking for that feedback in December is so that when we're doing the initial internal discussions, we're just aligned. It's not that to your point, everyone is going to be
exactly set to to one guard rail, >> right? >> We'll tell you what it looks like for each each department. the department head will be here to talk about it with you all and that way >> we understand the impacts of any any decision. But what we're putting together is responsive and aligned with what you all share after you've had a little little bit of time to look at
this and obviously if you have other questions I'm happy to answer them after tonight as well um in advance of that second meeting in December. >> Great. It's a great approach. >> Doug, did you have something? Um, well, I think the next item on the
agenda, you know, is adds further context uh to all of this too in terms of what the the tax rate increase is looking like. Um, so um, you know, this will all kind of play out as we get more information.
>> Great. Okay. >> Thanks, Doug. All right, moving on to item number three on the agenda. update and discussion of upcoming DO filings related to fiscal year 2026 classification hearing. Um, this is a joint meeting with the board of
assessors. So, do you all have to call your meeting to order? >> Well, we Aaliy is on his way. He was at a housing authority meeting. >> Okay. >> So, I I think we can begin the discussion and then >> and then you can call it to order. >> Call to order and go from there. >> Okay. You know, I just have a quick
question before we start. Has has the board of assessors reviewed these numbers? >> We just got them today. >> You just got them today? >> Yeah. >> And who do you get them from? >> Patriot Property. >> Okay. >> And so, if I may, just before Paul gets
started, we wanted to get in front of you all to share this information knowing that it's coming late from Patriot Property and we're trying to get everything together. We wanted to make sure that this was an opportunity to talk um and Paul can go into greater detail about the numbers where they are
so that questions can be asked. We can get answers both tonight and over time, but we didn't want to push this to December as the first time you hear about any of this. But we will have to come back to do the final classification hearing. This is to make sure you had some information and we were not just delaying the share of information as
well. >> Right. It just seems like every year there seems to be an issue with Patriot Property delivering information in a timely manner. So, and we're being shown numbers prior to the board of assessors even seeing numbers.
>> Well, in all fenicip your properties, it wasn't all them. Um, I took on more than I probably should have this year trying to get things looked at, which took me a lot longer than I ever possibly anticipated.
Um, so moving forward to next year, um, there's going to be a little bit different ballgame in how I proceed and then how we work with Patriot Properties as well. >> Can you could you elaborate on that on
that process? >> Yeah, I mean, when I started last year, it was kind of middle of everything. Um we worked on exemptions, got through that, got through a baiting season. Um and then um there were issues that came up that I felt needed to be um reviewed.
Um and there were two neighborhoods specifically and that was the o oceanfront neighborhoods. And so I looked at each and every one of those properties individually. Um, I looked at flyovers, I looked at MLS, I looked building permits, um,
deeds, plans, everything. Um, and in the process, I found things that needed to be corrected and rectified and kind of move on from there. Um, the oceanfront neighborhoods, I think, are the most complicated neighborhoods um, in
Swampscott. So, as I try to review further as we kind of move in town, um, with some of the other neighborhoods, uh, then hopefully things will get a little bit smoother. Um, I certainly did not anticipate that
things were going to be as complicated as they are. Um, Swampscott is a very complex town. Um, and so that makes it a little bit more complicated. And so, you know, trying to get forward and, you know, again, with 15 hours a
week, um, you know, it there's a lot there. >> Um, so I'm hoping that things will kind of smooth out a little bit. Um, but yeah, there'll be a different format moving forward. Um, what I'm finding is that after five years, um, some things
have changed, some things have changed with the Department of Revenue. Um, and for me, it's been a little bit more of a trying to remember how I did things five years ago um before I retired um in setting values and everything else. So, you know, from
my perspective, it did things a little bit backwards. Um but we with the help of Pedro, we're kind of, you know, set to move forward and in uh hopefully better direction. >> I have a couple questions. How many neighborhoods do we have in Swamp Scott? >> Off hand, I I don't know. I would
probably venture and you're talking single family neighborhoods. Probably about a dozen, I think. >> Yeah, I think there's more. >> Probably more. Yeah, >> right around 20. >> So, we have 20 neighborhoods and then you decided to look at two neighborhoods
and what, like bring them up to where they >> Well, again, we're looking for for issues. Um, the thing that I'm most concerned with is consistency and some uniformity >> within the neighborhoods, within the building styles, um, and you know, grades, etc. Um, and so I think that's
an important step to take to get things a little bit more in balance um, with neighborhoods, the way homes are looked at and assessed. Once things a little bit more in balance somewhere down in the future, um, then things should be a little bit easier when you're looking
at, you know, doing your sales and trying to determine what needs to be done, what needs to be adjusted. But right now is some of it's a little bit of a hodge podge. Um, and some things just really go back decades. Um, and I don't, you know, I think some things just haven't been looked at. So, you
know, fortunately, uh, you know, with Patriot there, um, you know, they I can rely on them for a second pair of eyes, um, to so that we can move forward. So the concern that I have is did we take two neighborhoods and the waterfront
neighborhood and whatever other neighborhood and adjust them to make them right and meanwhile there's another 18 neighborhoods out there that aren't just adjusted. So does that mean finish? Let me finish. Does that mean that there's another 18 neighborhoods
out there that are going to reap the benefit of these two? So my concerns are inequity inequity and I do know that the past town administrator did look at waterfront um within the first couple years and I I think my concerns are do
we immediately go to waterfront and make adjustments um how does the whole town because as assessors you're really not setting a tax rate you're setting the fairness of taxes. So, as assessors, do we really have a town fairness or are we
just identifying two two neighborhoods out of 20? That that's where my cons my concerns really are. >> The two neighborhoods were waterfront neighborhoods and that consisted of 140 homes. >> Mhm. >> Uh the next neighborhood I would like to look at would be the next one which be
ocean very good neighborhood. Those are the people right behind the oceanfront properties. Um, and I think there's uh probably under 200 of those homes as well. Um, this problem has been there for a long time. Again, with a turnover
of assessors every year or so, uh, hasn't helped. Um, you know, you you want fairness and equity, but to get fairness and equity, you have to start reviewing things and looking at things. And that's a process. It's not going to happen in one year. It's not going to
happen in a few months. I told my board you're probably looking at three to five years. >> So I I want to just say >> and that would probably working full-time, not 15 hours a week. >> So I just want to say you've you've been
there a year now, right? Is that >> Yeah. Surprising to me. Yes. >> Um and I thank you for that because there is a there was a you were put into a situation um of great difficulty, right? and very much understaffed and as you say to your point working for 15
hours a week you can't fix everything in 10 minutes right so I appreciate the the time you're putting in and looking at it systematically and I'm thinking from what you're saying you've tackled two neighborhoods and you're progressively going to get to the rest right but
you've got to start somewhere right and that's kind of your approach is you've >> Yeah and and I appreciate that um this is why when I first came in what I started telling everybody is you need a full-time assessor. >> Absolutely. >> I mean, >> remember that >> there are there have been missed opportunities for this town. Missed
opportunities probably with more growth um and getting things a little bit more balanced and uniform and and consistent. >> Y >> and again, you know, it it's very difficult to try to pick up the pieces. >> Yep. >> Yes. Am I going to step on toes in the
process? Absolutely. >> Yeah. Is there going to be some pain involved in trying to get things rectified? Of course, there will be. >> Sure. But I appreciate the undertaking because I know it's not small and >> and we weren't just picking on ocean. >> It's just >> you got to start somewhere and
>> we've had six assessors in 10 years and >> six different people and two years we didn't have anyone and >> completely understandable. is a lot that needs to be fixed and Paul's doing a great job and it's going to take time but >> absolutely I agree >> through the sales review process yes we
are looking at we have made changes in town some of the neighborhood land values have come up >> and again we're looking at at things as they come along and one of the things we patron and I looked at and talked about were some of the um table changes for building style
>> u because those were you know I had some old styles which were calculated at a higher prosperity and foot and colonials, antiques or contemporaries. >> Mhm. >> And in town we do have a lot of colonials and certainly antiques and God knows you have a lot of contemporaries.
>> True. And I I mean I really do want to understand I want everyone to understand the difficulty in filling this position, right? Let's understand there's not a whole you know it's like needle in a hay stack finding an experienced assessor to get in and do the work right that you've been undertaking which is a mountain of
work. in and in in the very beginning you said that you know I can't do it by myself in 15 hours a week. So thank you for your diligence. >> I'd like to think that I'm looking trying to get the town's best interest. >> Of course. Yeah. >> Um and and I have lots of ideas and how
things could be have could be done. Um but again, you know, >> we need to help you. >> I can't bite off more than I can chew. I mean, there are things that I'd like to see done probably more >> quicker than not, but I realize that I I simply can't do it.
>> Absolutely. No, I appreciate that. I appreciate your honesty as well. So, so Paul, if we, you know, when we hire a full-time assessor, how much more rapidly can this process progress instead of it being two neighbor two of 20 neighborhoods, let's
say, someone full-time comes in and within 12 months, where where should we be given the fact that you're you've been in the seat for, you know, for for a year now? >> Or how long will it take us to >> how long will it take us to to to to catch
>> again? I still maintain 3 to 5 years. Um, >> I was in Western for almost 25 years. >> When I took the job, I saw that there were lots of inequities in in little neighborhoods and all over the place with a full-time staff working full-time, a full-time assessor, three
admin people in my office. It still took me three years. >> Yeah. to go through each neighborhood, land values, rectify some neighborhoods, look at building grades and cost tables and everything else. Once all that's
kind of in place, I don't want to say you're on autopilot, but then it's a little easier to to look at your your sales and see what what's going on and where you need to go. um in single families and you have a lot of two families in town. Um condos are little
bit different animal um because every time a new condo is created, it creates its own neighborhood. >> Even if it's just a condex, right? And so those sale prices will immediately tell you where things are going. >> Um single families, you have much
different neighborhoods. Um, and I would probably venture to guess um that even in one neighborhood you might see a differential um a difference in probably building grades in how those resales and sales take place. >> And that can happen as well.
>> So I know that there are parts of town that are you know more um definent than other parts of town which are a little more bluecollar. Um and so but again even with some of the two families I've seen even on the same street where they were converted to condos
>> that on the resales on the same street we have this >> right because the resale start to tell you what's really happening in the market >> and to the extent the property may have been renovated or not renovated right >> and you know again and we're coming into
some very uncertain times with the economy and the market >> so there's no projecting what'll happen in the future. Um my only goal, you know, whether values go up, down, it doesn't matter to me. I just want to get some consistency and uniformity. >> Yeah.
>> So that the town can move forward with whoever is here um is a full-time assessor, >> right? >> That makes sense. >> So two things. One, I just Sorry, Doug. Go ahead. >> No, that's okay. Go ahead. I was just
gonna Well, number one, Charlie's here, so we can open their um >> We did. >> You did in secret. >> Well, not in secret, but I'm just >> um I think the other thing that I would just like to say is this is not the first time we've heard any of this
information. This is maybe the first time we heard we only made it to two neighborhoods and those two neighborhoods were X. But Charlie, you've been to our meeting how many times and discussed necessary the necessity for a full-time assessor? We've heard it not just from you, but from others, from Paul, from Nick, and
Nick's only been been here how long? We've heard it. Um, so this will be a consistent issue until we solve that problem because we just there just are not enough hours for you to get the baseline back to where it needs to be
for us to have that equity and consistency. It's just not it's not viable. >> I'd like to add, I probably did something that maybe has never been done in town. Um I sent out impact letters to all the oceanfront people that yes we
are looking yes they may go up down or they maybe they'll stay about the same you know but as the review process goes through um the review part of the review process is when I'm if I come out and I look at a house for an abamement or somebody wants me to go out and look at a house you're trying to get the
information correct which reestablishes what that base value would be and then once that's there then we start looking at sales and then we need to see where that's going to go. I've had a lot of condos that have come down in value um and some have gone up, some stay the same. Same with some of the single
families and some of the neighborhoods. So again, you know, it it's a process and that will, you know, that's always changing. >> All right. So why don't we move on to the presentation if you don't mind? >> Uh Katie.
>> Yes, Doug. >> I had a question. Oh, sorry. I'm not sure if this is covering the presentation, but I want to go sorry a little bit back to what Mary Allen was asking. Paul, can you just try to state as as simply for layman's terms as possible,
what led you to choose certain neighborhoods? Like, did you have certain data that indicated that they were out of whack? I I I'm just trying to get a sense of like why out of all the neighborhoods you chose the ones you did. Well, a lot of it stem
from um some complaints uh because what some I was hearing and after doing an initial review, I agree with the person um that his home was graded and valued at X amount of dollars. And yet he had
neighbors which which had newer construction of similar quality but were valued lower. And again, you know, my perspective is it's not enough to look at his home and
two or three of his neighbors. I decided to look at literally the entire neighborhood. And I felt that if I hadn't done that, then I really wouldn't be doing my job or, you know, doing my job to the way I thought that it should be done.
So yes, sometimes a complaint will kind of >> trigger >> kind of kickstart something. Um, and again, you know, being a complicated neighborhood, it wasn't the most pleasant thing to do. Um, there was a
lot of time involved in looking at this. Um, there were some properties because of looking at permits, some building plans, resetching properties, um, a ton of review work. There were times where it would take me two or three hours just
to review one property. >> So, I don't know if that answers your question, but you know, sometimes, you know. >> Yeah. No, I was just curious cuz I didn't know if there was some way in which you had uh I assume you can't really know this until you actually get in and evaluate them, but if there was
any way or reasoning that you would be able to uh have a sense of which neighborhoods are the most uh you know over or underassessed, you know, even before you get there if there's general trends that uh lead you to um have that
you know, kind of hunch to begin with. >> Yeah. what what I find and sometimes I'm just looking at a property doesn't matter what part of town um I I see things that's that that flash to me u and and signals that yeah maybe there's
something that needs to be looked at it might be a problem here and then it's not just looking at that one property what I've done is I'll run a report to see potentially how many other properties might be affected the same way and again so that spurs one thing
and then it becomes many. Um so again, you know, I would like to continue looking at the neighborhoods as you know, moving forward. Um and then trying to establish that. I think that as I move and progress
inward, um that some of the neighborhoods will start to become a little bit easier to look at. Some of the more affluent neighborhoods, I mean, we're not talking cookie cutter homes. uh we're talking, you know, lots of different um you know, grades and,
you know, sale prices and everything else. So, the the idea is as we move inward um towards town and and probably towards the Lynn line that things will start to smoothen out and it'll be a little easier to look at.
>> I have a quick question. When somebody pulls pulls a building permit and they're finished with their work, I don't know who know the answer to this. Do does the building inspector have to go in and do an occupancy?
>> The building inspector does his office permit. What I would like to do and one of the things I would like to propose now whether it's feasible for me to do it I don't know is that what I implemented in Westford when I started we started working with the building
inspector's office and the assessor's office became part of the signing off process for an occupancy permit and what that means is that a builder a homeowner if they were doing extensive renovations new construction addition whatever it
was Before the building inspector released the Oxley permit, they had to come to my department first and we did the inspection. And again, the idea here is that we walk in the door that we're trying to get the information as accurate as pro as possible so that we
can assess it correctly. Once we did our job, then all the other permitting for plumbing, electrical, everybody's in line in in line, everybody signed off at that point. then the building commissioner would would issue the oxy permit.
The thing with doing permit inspections after the fact is is the odds of getting it to a home afterwards are >> basically nil. So, we're looking at um you know there's a lot of information with the building
department and I've utilized open gov a lot. >> Don't we have do we have soft software that comes into the building inspector and doesn't that software also go to your office? >> It doesn't come to my office. I have access to it. Okay. Okay. And so what I
do from there is like, you know, if Patriots's going to do data entry to enter the permit information, um, I run a report from them. But what I've done is is when I'm have looked at neighborhoods or any house basically is is I'm looking at building permits. Um,
and where I can't find anything more recent because I'm not sure how far back open gov does it does go. Um, I'll ask for any archived information and I've looked at those as well. And in the process, I've actually saved all this stuff in a separate folder on my
desktop. Um, so there I would find building plans and then I kind of review the building plans to the sketch that I'm looking at. And if things look like they match, great. If they look like they might be off, then I may go in and alter the sketch or I'll just delete it
and start the sketch all over again. But again, when you start looking at a, you know, four, five, 6, 8,000 square foot house, not not easy to do. It's it's very time consuming. But open God, there's a lot of
information there. A lot also I don't look just at the plum at in building permits. I looked at plumbing and electrical as well. No stone unturned. Okay. Um, lot of information. Appreciate the backdrop, but um, we will, I think,
move on to the, um, presentation if you don't mind. Diane, do you have that? So let's start. I just wanted to make sure that where we all know that these are basically proposed um numbers that I'm looking at. Um once the board
issues and I have signatures and that'll be submitted to department of revenue at which point they will review the information and they will work will pay for um their review and certification. >> Excuse me, Paul. One second. Doug, can you see the slides through Teams?
>> Yes, I can. >> Okay, thank you. Go ahead. Sorry. >> So, right now, as we stand now, that the total taxable value um in town is is well over $5 billion. Um that's an increase about 4% from FY25.
Um so, this is where we are is looking at um all the neighborhoods, single families, condos, everything else, any increase in value. So there has been an increase in value from last year on the grand total above 4%. >> I know that was on
>> Does that include any of our Does that also include the elementary school? >> Pardon? >> Does that include the elementary school? >> The elementary school is an exempt property. So that's not taxable. >> Okay. >> I mean there are there is a value for exempt properties which we do account
for every year. I'm just thinking of asset. >> Okay. >> Uh new growth this year. Um the number here that you see of of 41 million in growth value. Um when I first looked at it, the numbers were coming in and they
looked at it whole broad numbers. What I didn't do and it was to I have to account for or remove any abatements that were done this year which would alter that growth value. So right now what would be I'm looking at proposing to the department of revenue is probably
about 38 um million plus um in in new growth value that would transfer if everything is approved of about $492,000 in growth revenue. $491,497
assuming everything gets approved and certified. So that's an increase from last year about you know about 22% um from last year's growth value growth revenue which was around $400,000. So how we look at growth is you know we
kind of look at we're looking at building permits MLS any information any changes in a property that we're now assessing that we hadn't assessed in the past constitutes new growth. So, right now, um, I know Patrick's
still doing his thing. Um, the estimated levy that I took, um, is kind of what's currently showing, um, with the Department of Revenue in part of the recap. So, again, for illustrative purposes, we're going to go with that number. So, the proposed single tax rate based
on the $65 million levy against the $5 billion um taxable value of properties in town is $131. Um so, historically um Swampscott has shifted to the full max um on commercial
um industrial personal property and so we also looking at the minimum residential factor. So, assuming that the board will be doing the same thing, and I can't imagine that you won't, um, the residential rate would be looking around $12.33,
which is an increase from last year, which was $1147. And commercial properties are projected to be about $22.88. And these numbers may change um a little bit
once we have the final levy number. >> What's the current commercial rate? >> You said you said that the current residential was 11 uh 47, but what's commercial? >> Yeah. Um yeah, the residential rate last year was 1147. So what's proposed is 1233.
>> Mhm. uh the commo commercial the CIP rate for FY26 we're looking at proposal of $22.88 88 cents and that is up from what it right now I believe it's $21 and I think 70 something cents. Yeah.
>> Okay. >> So, quick look. It was kind of a little bit down and dirty. Um looking at what the average assessed single family is. um based on the information as is that average single family assessment is at
$951,000. And so that means that the average single family is going to see um an increase in their taxes um based on what we know right now. And that average will go up about $1,100 a year.
And I haven't looked at median value yet. So last year's average um tax was 10,618. This year we're projecting that to be $11,730. And so as the levy changes, goes up or
down um you know taxes will change too. to see >> Oh, the Community Preservation Act. Yeah, >> Community Preservation Act. >> So, this year the Community Preservation Act is new. Um, that does not impact the overlay at all. That's counted separately. And so, yes, that community
preservation act is going to add a little bit more on top of that tax bill. Um, but Swampscott is actually, you know, with 100,000 exemption and I believe you went to a one and a half%. Is that correct? >> Yep. Yeah. >> So, it really becomes that little extra
search charge on your tax. >> What was the average on that >> on that extra search charge? >> I don't recall >> the average annual cost. >> Doug, do you recall? >> Doug must know.
>> Yeah, I think it was uh I don't know definitely somewhere between 100 150. >> Yeah. 137 for some reason is sticking in my head. It's >> weird. >> It is weird. I know. And we've also had an increase in water and sewer. >> Yeah. So, how does this 10.5% compare to
prior years? >> Does anybody know that off? >> Yeah, I have not looked at prior years. All this was done at 8:00 last night. >> Patrick, do you have any idea? >> I off the top of my head, I don't have a, you know, solid comparison. And I
know we've seen some decent leaps the last few years generally because of trends in property values. I think Paul would agree with that statement, but um we can get that data for the board ahead of the classification hearing. >> So I don't know if it's Paul or Patrick
just help me or maybe others understand, you know, if the value of a single family home is going up 3%. >> Yes. based on last year's average. Correct. >> Sure. Why is the
I mean I I don't know about anyone else but unless there's something that I'm missing here. This 10.5% is pretty alarming. It is why why is that going up 10.5 if the single family home is going up in three? Is it have something to do with
the levy? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> It's always based on the levy. Um, >> right. >> Going up, but it's particularly >> because of our spending. >> It's going up. >> It's how much we're spending, Doug.
>> The le about the spending. >> The levy's going to have to cover how much we're spending. >> We can get this information to you a lot sooner. Okay. >> The current tax levy that we're we're
that's being estimated right now is 12% than over last year's tax levy. So your tax levy has gone up a lot. And again, these are all just proposed numbers. Um you know, the final numbers
aren't there yet. additional questions. >> Where are we with having a full-time assessor? As I mentioned at the beginning, >> we also will be re reposting at a new salary. >> Thank you. >> This is one of the few positions and I
would put it in with Rich as an example where it has a very specific impact. Yeah. On >> for sure >> all of these questions based on having someone that's able to be there not just for 15 hours um but in a full-time capacity.
>> So yes, we will be reposting with a new salary. That was part of why was raised it a couple weeks ago. I met with the assessors as a board and Paul was that last week. >> Yep. >> Um I'm sorry. One week becomes the next. Um and it they had raised it. I had
heard it from you all but we wanted to complete the survey so that it was not simply four or five of us or six of us saying it should be more and not knowing what that's based on or from. Is that the last slide that you have? >> It is.
>> Yes. So, could we walk through what the steps are as things are finalized so that the board is aware of what the next steps are in there? >> So, the the next step would be for the values or what we call the LA4 which has to be submitted to department of revenue. Um, and that'll be done once
the board um makes that decision and votes on it. Then I will >> Board of Assessors. >> Board of Assessors you're talking about, not the select board. >> Oh, select board. Yeah. So, I mean, at this point, select board really can't move further until the board of assessors um gets their signatures on
there and submits the LA4, which is our our value report, and the LA13, which is our growth report. Um, and once those things get approved, then from the board of assessors perspective, we've kind of done they've done their
part. At that point, you know, then classification, yes, would be, you know, you'll be having classification to vote on the final numbers. Um, but that won't happen until special time meeting to wrap up all financial pieces. So once that's done and the recap's completed
and all signatures are there, then everything's submitted to department of revenue at that point in time and then you know your rate would be certified. Okay. What is the date that we have to get our rate in by, Patrick?
>> Well, the bills must be sent out by December 31st. So, I think last year we submitted around December 12th or so, and it takes a couple days to get approval for on the entire tax rate recap. >> So, you're saying we need to bring this >> to the next.
>> So, then how do we do it? What's the timing looking like? Because we need town meeting first. >> Well, we have a meeting on the 3. Correct. >> Okay. >> So, town meeting is the first, maybe the second, we meet again the third. And I don't want to put that out there either,
but I'm being practical. Um, and then we would meet the third, we could tackle this then, so long as the assessor's pieces. >> Yeah. Once everything gets submitted from from our end, I mean, I would hope that within a week everything would get
approved. So if it if >> done. >> So that's what I was going to address. If we have the assessor's work complete, we anticipate that the I'm just trying to think how we can get back in front of
you with more complete information even if it means we need to do that that complete information review give you time and then meet remotely perhaps >> on the 10th >> or hybrid. >> So we have to wait until the 17th is all I'm saying. We could also wait, you
know. >> Yeah, I could probably get them all both done. >> If you'd like, I can work with Paul in advance of town meeting. We have a select board meeting that I can make this part of the agenda for the May one to give you an update on where we are.
And that way we can make sure that we are setting up a timeline that is doable from your standpoint that works in what has been completed by the assessor >> and it turns it around as quickly as possible to get everything into do. But if Diane if we could just add that to
the agenda for the first so that I I have the ability to speak to you all about it right before town meeting just so it's an open meeting. >> We have a posted meeting right before town. Right. >> Correct. >> Got it. Okay. Going to be sick of each other that week. >> Yep.
and perhaps put a placeholder on the third that we can just push if we're not ready for it. So that that also can be posted in advance of Thanksgiving so we all know. >> Does that work for the board? >> And Paul, you and I can work on details of what >> what works when and timing as we get closer to it.
>> The sooner we can, you know, get things submitted um and then, you know, again, I can't have no control of Department of Revenue, but I would certainly hope within a week um that we would we would hear something. So you and I can talk, you know, tomorrow and this week and then also at the beginning of next week.
So >> yeah, we do have a board meeting tomorrow. Y >> So um I until tomorrow happens, I don't know what's going to happen. >> Of course. I I just mean I want to be in touch with you throughout the next 10 days so that when we sit down on the first, I have as full a picture as possible. We have a placeholder for the
third in case we have the opportunity to do something and to the idea that we want to share the information and then have time to digest it. so we can decide if we want to do a remote meeting or how we want to proceed. But I'm going to have it posted for the first for me to give you all an update and a placeholder on the third so you can act on it
assuming everything goes >> as quickly as possible with everyone everything that's outside of the control of the board if that works for you all. >> Yes, please. Okay. >> Yeah, I'll keep you in the loop. I mean as we things progress. Perfect.
>> Okay. Anything else for Paul or the board of assessors? The only question I would have is if we wanted to get this community up to speed in less than the three to five years that you're forecasting out. Um
because there's going within that three to five years there's an overall town evaluation. When we do our town evaluations, do we do them every five? >> They're done annually. >> No, the whole the big town >> reertification. Reertification is done
every 5 years now. >> Okay. So, that's coming up. >> I haven't checked, but I think FY27 might be a resert year. >> I I think what what I'm trying to get to is what what really is the return on investment if we were to get if the
whole town were to be balanced out such as those two comm those two those two neighborhoods like what if if we were to spend x amount of dollars, what would we get back in return? I don't know if I can answer that. I mean, what what I would hope is that
there would be um more control within the assessor's office that there'd be um better accounting, you know, looking at building permits so that we're not um you know, missing things. You know, sometimes that happens. Um you know,
getting more done inhouse is something I I believe in and I always have even when I was working full-time. um because then I can control or the assessor can control what's happening not just in the office but when you're also have more
control about valuations and how you're moving forward as an assessor I always could explain to any taxpayer what occurred what happened and why because I'm the guy that did it but when when we have lots of moving pieces around it's
kind of difficult to to to get a hold of of everything. Um I I think from my perspective that it'd be in the town's best interest that to be able to have that, you know, so that you can continue, you know, having consistency and uniformity and that, you know,
looking through there. Um new growth is a big factor. I mean, especially I think Ces office, I think towns kind of live and die by having that new growth. And of course, the more new growth you can capture, then I think that, you know,
the town is better off in the long run. Um, and again, it's just you want to make sure that if you're talking about equity and and assessing or taxation, then it has to be really applied across the board and making sure that yeah, you
know, like you got a permit for a new kitchen that I got you for that new kitchen that it didn't kind of slide behind slide behind. You have permits for $300,000 for a new kitchen and I say, "Oh, I went from average to good."
Well, you know, you're you're making out >> um on this because that means you have a much nicer upgraded >> kitchen, >> right? Custom kitchen and and so the assessment should reflect those things. So, there's a lot there that we could
look at, but again, it it's just >> time >> being able to have some of that manpower to do that. When I was working full-time, I had I was myself a full-time assistant assessor and three admin staff. >> So, you know, can we do a lot more with
that? Sure. You know, I'm not proposing to go to that extreme, but having enough um >> manpower, >> enough help in the office, you know, is is a big deal. Yes. >> One side is for the tax.
>> Yeah. would you mind passing the mic just so folks at home can hear? >> Thank you. There's two sides of the benefit to Mary Allen's question. One is the tax rate that the town collects to be able to operate and fund our expenses. But the other side that no one's spoken about is the taxpayer, the
residents of the town. And so when you take a look at a property that's properly uh valued and you see a tax rate that is adjusted to the needs of the town with a fully fully market value uh appraised property, there's no such thing as
equity in taxes, but there's equity and ownership. And so when your house is properly valued at full market value and your tax rate is a little lower because your rate of value is higher in the end, the benefit to the town is you still collect what you needed to because
you'll adjust your tax rate to get there. But to the homeowner, my home is worth more. And let me give you a practical example. When I first moved here in 1990 and I looked at Marblehead and I looked at Swampscott, my realtor said to me I could buy more house in Swampscott
because the value was lower and I could get more house. But he did not tell me or she did not tell me that my tax rate would be a little higher because my value was a little lower because this town still needs to run its operation. So if we properly value our homes, you
have the opportunity to set a tax rate that it meets the needs and not just an an unbalanced or or not a full valued property. So now the homeowner gets to say, I have a problem that's actually a
blessing. My home is worth more. My taxes are cost less and I have equity in my home. Would you rather have equity in your home that's worth more with a lower tax rate or a home that's worth less with a higher tax rate? That's the benefit, the full answer to Marielen's
question. >> Um I think the other thing that you know sort of popped into my mind when Marielle was saying that is like >> question >> how um how we go about facilitating that more equitably. Is it does it involve so
yes we hire a full-time assessor but even that is going to still take years so is there consultants that come in and help us get it up to snuff faster and I think the question is what's the return on that happening
like that would be interesting to have more data points on that >> and we can look into that more the one thing that the board of assessors sent me a letter soon after starting is not it's a full-time assessor with Paul staying on for a period of time not only to get this person up to speed on the
history as Paul's been able to figure it out here, but also because of his his experience and expertise. >> So, if we if we are able to do both and figure out what that is, it could be that not only is Paul helping someone get on their feet, but it could I'm
speaking for you. We have not discussed this potentially be that it's putting together a plan that says, you know, these are the types of resources you should look inhouse, you should you can look outside. My concern not about I think we're all having a really good discussion. My concern was sort of the
pennywise approach that was used in the past, >> right? >> And so it might be that we come back with something that's >> it costs money to get to equitable more quickly so that again it's applied as quickly and fairly as possible. Um, but I'd be happy to work with Paul and
whoever from the assessor's board is interested in figuring out what that could look like so we do come back with more information for you all to react to because I think the the point is well raised >> but I don't think we have enough information tonight to have a fruitful discussion for the >> agree. >> Part of getting you know values or
assessments more you know more equalized is it's in the details when you're looking at a property. It's the little things that you're finding or not finding or that you find after the fact. And those are the little things that you know can add value to a
property. But again, when we're analyzing sales, the first step is you know you know what did we what is it that we need to find about this property? And fortunately today with you know listings um pictures and great narratives about properties and
everything else. This is where we find that is part of our new growth, but we're reestablishing where that base is to see. So when you start eventually looking across town when more of the details are are in this range then
things do become more equitable because on a level that everyone is is closer to where market value should be and market value is always changing. you know, whether and the values were to come down townwide, but you have a high tax levy,
just means you're going to have a higher tax rate and you're still going to have to pay taxes to meet the levy. So, the board of assessors, we don't control the levy. Um, you know, we're just on the back end. Our job is really is valuation. And you know, I mean, it's
simply, you know, value times tax rate equals the tax that your portion of that of that very big pie. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Look forward to the next meeting. >> Sounds good.
>> You guys need to adjourn your meeting. Thank you, Paul. >> Thank you, Paul, very much. >> I'm not the bearer of good news. Very good. >> All right. Thank you both for joining us. >> Thank you all. >> Right. Uh we are moving on then to
item number four, presentation and discussion of the Hawthorne Reuse Advisory Committee recommendation. Okay. So with us we have chair of the Hawthorne News Committee Brian Watson and I think another member Tara. Um just
here for a Okay. Thanks. Um so where shall we begin Brian? >> Um my name is Brian Watson. um chairman of the Horththon reuse advisory committee and I put together a short presentation uh that I'd like to go
through without interruption and then uh you know we can talk and have questions at the end. Uh this presentation would take maybe 15 minutes and it will be uh useful in terms of giving you a frame framework of what we've done and reporting on our recommendations.
>> Okay. Um >> I will interrupt you even though you asked for no interruption that there may be questions along the way and it may make sense to stop. So >> we'll do our best not to interrupt but in case we need clarity just >> it might be that I've anticipated some questions okay in putting together the presentation. I mean I did try to do
that >> cover the obvious stuff and I left out the other stuff. So um the whole reuse advisory committee consists of uh 12 appointed members. We were and are a very diverse group. I joke to people that the select board managed to find 12
people who have more opinions than the full full 14,000 in town. Um that's true. In any case, uh our first meeting was March 18th. Um and we we had 16 additional meetings. Um we had a clear mission statement that we kept in mind.
Uh one was to conduct a thorough analysis of the site identifying all the factors impacting development. We defined clear goals and established explicit criteria uh with which to evaluate and compare compare plans. Um
we we developed and drew a range of site plans and analyzed their strengths and weaknesses and tradeoffs. Um and lastly we kept in mind that we would ultimately need consensus both the committee uh the select board and then of course eventually the town itself
around a single comprehensive plan. So, our committee did a ton of work um before we started uh picking plans or rejecting plans or comparing plans. Uh our committee really went about educating ourselves uh and on a wide variety of issues. Um, you might
remember me standing up here a year or so ago, uh, saying if I participate in this committee, I would do my best to, uh, to help contribute to a process that that maybe filled in some gaps that that didn't get filled in in the HDR uh,
process. And u uh, at that time I said HDR left out a step and that step was facilitating the discussion about how does a town select a development plan? um what should be involved in that process. What does that process look like? Well, our committee uh learned
that missing step and and we executed it um often very roughly uh and I know sometimes uh some of the select board was there and they observed with their own eyes. It was often contentious, but we did execute those steps and we really did educate ourselves. Um we looked
carefully at the Humphrey Street context in the history of the street and the site prior to 1967. Prior to ' 67, uh, the Hawthorne building didn't exist. Uh, we went as a group to the site. We tried to grasp the size and scale of the lot.
We tried to picture various site plans on the lot. Uh, a few of us even went out early on and and chalk marked the parking lot and laid out some of the site plans just to just to give ourselves an idea of what size these buildings were and how how would they
fit on the site. Um we drew and discussed about 20 site plans for the single lot and we drew and discussed about 10 plans for the potential double lot. Um depending upon which plan we were examining, we discussed who uh the
public sector or the private sector would build certain portions of each plan. We we discussed the possibility of selling or leasing a portion of the lot again depending upon the plan uh being ex uh examined. We have studied the financial pictures in approximate and
comparative plans of many of many of the different plans. I'm sorry, in approximate and comparative terms uh of the many different plans and I will add in light of the discussion tonight and so forth, our committee was extremely uh aware of how important the financial
aspects of any plan would be. We we kept that in mind at all times. Um lastly and most important most important we developed a list of factors considerations and criteria for evaluating the pros and cons the strengths and weaknesses of each plan to
the extent possible to the extent possible the committee strives to approach the problem with objective deliberation. Um Diane, could you put appendix D on the PL on on the screen, please? >> Okay. Well, that they're a little hard
to read, but but that's all right. Uh >> Doug, can you see Doug? Can you see the slides >> through teams? >> They basic what >> they basically show categories of concern. Uh you notice economics and financial uh concerns is first. Um
they're all very important. They're all to be considered simultaneously. Uh but with with with the financial factors, we weighed the revenue a plan would generate the costs the cost to the town and then we we did that for shortterm and long term. So we didn't look just at any one period of time. We tried to play
it out. We looked at environmental considerations. Uh could we make part of the site green space or could we not? Uh and what goes along with that. We evaluated building arrangement and park arrangement. So it wasn't just a matter of the math problem of fitting 28,000 or
30,000 square feet on on site. It's can you do that and create something that's that's beautiful and coherent. Uh parking factors obviously self-explanatory. We needed to have a certain monocum of parking. Uh visas uh I'm sorry, vistas. Just this came on came out as a very important
consideration we added. Can you go to the next slide? >> Yep. Um so the degree of alignment um with the goals of the Humphrey Street uh district, the Humphrey Street overlay district, there is a there is a a district that runs from the Fish House
down to Mission on the Bay and it talks about how the town can pursue a sort of vital retail shop uh economic corridor. So we tried to you know we tried to factor that in as well. Social considerations are we creating a place that people would enjoy that people
would come to? Does it create a sense of community or can it create a sense of community? Uh the existing Horththon restaurant building, we looked hard at that and and and what it would mean to either leave it or not. Um building uses, we looked at what would be in the buildings that we would propose if we
did. Uh you know, again, shops, retail, residential, would there be residential? Um we also looked at feasibility and timing. Every one of our plans went through the greater in terms of is this a feasible plan? Can it be done in a timely manner? uh is it too complex to
pursue for a municipality? And then lastly, permitting and zoning. That's that's obvious. Um for anybody evaluating plans uh or expressing an opinion about a plan or a preference, um these criteria are like a test or a
filter um that each proposal or plan option must really be submitted to. Um I I used to tell the committee we had an expression in in architectural firms, no plan gets a free pass. That means every plan goes through the same uh is subject
to the same sorts of questions. And that's that's a fairness issue. It's a way to keep us all honest, it means that that one plan when you're compare comparing one plan to another, you're asking the same questions of it. Um the other thing about these frameworks,
these criteria, they provide and this is very important, they provide a shared grounding or orienting framework and a shared vocabulary for a comm for a committee of 12, a select board of five, a town meeting of 324
or or a town of 14,000 uh to engage with each other to engage with multiple site plan options ultimately to select uh a wise plan. Um, after weighing these considerations, uh, and believe me, there was a lot of discussion about all
aspects of these, I I've barely even touched on the depth of the discussions we had, um, the committee decided that any development of the site, any development of the site should include a blend of five ingredients to best satisfy these criteria. We call it a
mixeduse plan. It contains these ingredients. Some amount of green space, public access and walk along the shoreline, some amount of buildings, some amount of parking, and some amount of revenue generation. And all of that
blended into a plan that's that also possessed coherence, logic, and created a memorable, attractive sense of place across all parts of the site. Now the committee in light of the criteria concluded that retaining the
Hawthon build building whether a single or a double large site uh did not achieve these goals by and large uh and in fact would be an obstacle to achieving these goals. Um so the the committee unanimously did recommend u
polishing it. Uh there there was one person who was indecisive about it but but the rest of us were unanimous about it. Um could you Diane put site plan A on the screen. So that's site plan A. Those are the existing conditions which show the
footprint of the Hon building and rough roughly 110 or 115 parking spaces. So this is this was an important decision and obviously it's one the town is grappling with. It's a tough call. Um but the reasons the the committee felt confident and remember this is these are
12 very diverse people. They all we all walked in on in March with very diverse opinions. Um leaving the Horththon we decided precluded any substantial green green area at all. It precluded substantially
any view or coastline walk access. Now, I'm saying substantial because it's conceivable that, you know, a a walk line, a a a coastline access could be hung off the back, but it's not a substantial uh uh piece of work. Um it
is poor town planning uh very poor town planning to have a large parking lot in the most prime, most visible, most significant parcel of land in what should be really an imageful downtown. Not one we have to apologize for. Um, furthermore, the building is not
architecturally noteworthy and it needs substantial costly repair and renovation. It when measured by the Humphrey Street Overlay District, it violates the intentions, the guidelines, and the principles in the Humphrey Street Overlay District. It does not
contribute to that uh district. It's a flop environmentally. The parking lot is literally one acre. So, it's a heat island. It's a tremendous heat island. Um, and here's an important thing. We can beat whatever the hor here's a really important thing because the the idea is to compare plans. There's no
absolutes, but we can beat leaving the restaurant. We can beat it financially, envir uh environmentally. We can beat it in attractiveness. We can beat it in downtown places in image building. So, it falls when measured by the criteria,
it falls uh way short. Um the committee also unanimously opposes leasing it for one, two or three years to another operator. Um we think bearing in mind that financial issues are very uh
important. We think it's actually the financially uh weakest of the plans, we think we can beat it with our proposal. Um we also think that it's an obstacle. What one could say, well what's the harm rented for a year? Is that an obstacle? In fact, it is because that would require time and attention and resources
uh that this town, you know, has difficulty providing. It's a man it would be a managerial burden on our town and it complicates things. Um, keeping a restaurant in a one and and and lastly, keeping the restaurant in a 1acre parking lot would probably be the site
outcome least expected by the town's people. It's the it's it's the solution that's least expected. And believe me, we heard from 550 people, you know, a relative handful, 10 or 12 said keep the restaurant. Everybody else said do other things. >> So I want to stop you right there. Where
what was the mechanism to hear from 550 people? How did you hear from 500? >> Uh we we we had two public forums. We also solicited uh through questionnaers uh written responses. So we we had 450 roughly 450 written responses and then
we tallied almost 100 verbal comments at the two town forums and we had about four people taking notes on on comments. I personally read about 150 of the written stuff written stuff. >> So you have 450 written responses. >> Pardon?
>> You have 450 written responses that you're going to submit that we can look at >> if you'd like to. Sure. Yeah. Yep. Um they were, you know, if you look at the 550, uh a slight majority uh preferred a mixeduse plan and and it was almost half
and half. Almost almost half preferred all park an allp park plan. >> Do you have those numbers in your presentation here? >> No, I'm almost done. I don't have them, but I can certainly give them to you. I mean, uh Marzy Marsy's office tallied them all, so it's it wouldn't be any
problem to give them to you. Um, as I say, it's was almost half for a full green park and and slightly more than half preferred. Actually, we put we we showed three plans at the forums. We we showed G1, which is the one we ultimately selected. We showed E3 and E4, but all three of those were
essentially conceptually the same. They showed between 25 and 35,000 square feet of building toward the front. They showed the the whole back half of the site as a park. So roughly 50% always on the ocean side because that Well, let's just go to G1. I'm almost finished and
I'll and I and I just I meant to show you this in a diagram. Diane, can you just put um G1 on the screen? >> Can you take your microphone with you, Brian, so folks at home can hear you? >> Thank you, Patrick. >> Okay.
Okay. >> Is this is this way? >> We can see here. >> Yeah, it's fine. >> Okay. Okay. All right. So, G G1 is the single lot plan, meaning it's it's the plan that uh
the committee recommends if in the event that the town does not buy the church parking lot. So, this is the single lot plan. You can see the buildings are arranged to create a courtyard that's open to the street. Uh the buildings shown here, those are the footprints and
they and and the committee recommends between uh roughly 25,000 square ft and 35,000 ft. Just a range. Um and the uh the courtyard is roughly 50 feet wide. It's the right width for the scale uh
for the scale of the buildings. Uh you can see the the back 50% of the site is is parkland. Um the courtyard is completely open to the park and the street. So there's a tremendous sense of openness. I mean there was one really
strong common theme across the 550 questionnaers. It was interesting almost everybody talked about needing uh quite a large open view. Uh so that we just that was such that came through so strongly we tried to uh respect it. And
then to the right of the buildings here you see a relatively small parking lot that's about 30 spaces. Um one of the things one of the characteristics of every single plan we looked at say 30 plans every one of them really fights to
achieve the amount of parking that would be most desirable. So I think it's fair to say that no plan gives you the ideal amount of parking but we tried to we tried to provide what we thought was at least a modicum respectable amount of
parking and it it's just gets it gets difficult to achieve other goals if parking starts to be uh too too big an item. Um, in this plan you see the dotted lines, the dashed lines across those two buildings that that could be a
second or third floor connection of those buildings across the open courtyard. So, a person on the sidewalk still sees the view, gets the complete view, those are second and third floors above uh uh above eye level. And and
again, that's that's to help create some definition on Humphrey Street. So, one of the goals was can we reinforce the Humpy Street Overlay district? And uh the committee envisions uh and recommends uh that the first floors of
all these buildings be uh retail or shops, you know, cafes, restaurants. You know, the first floor should be business and commercial and and hope to generate uh life in this courtyard. Uh and then what's in the second and third floor or
or second floor depending on the heights of the buildings uh you know would would be yet to be determined. We don't think the town would be building these buildings. You know we envision that uh either uh that a developer would either uh buy buy the front half of the lot or
lease the front half. The committee favored leasing it but again that's not our call. Um, but the town wouldn't be the contractor. And what I what I mentioned at the last select board meeting, but didn't really have a chance to talk about was I know the town is concerned about coming up with, you
know, $800,000 to demolish the restaurant. Um, one way to skin the cat, and the committee talked about this, is that sometimes with plans like this, a municipality will uh fold demolition of an existing building into the
development the development plan of the buildings. So, uh, if if the town put out an RFP for this site, u tearing down the Hawthon would be part of the job of the developer. Uh, even though the land
itself would be retained by the town, uh, it's a way for the town not to have to put out money uh, at all. Now, it must be said that de a developer then, you know, in whatever arrangement the town makes with the developer, you're
either going to get a little less money for from the land sale or if it's a leasing situation, obviously the rent will be lower to make up for the fact that that fellow put out 800,000 to take the building down. So, it's not a free lunch, but it is a way not to need money
from the town to get this done. >> Um, >> Brian, can I ask a question, please? Yeah. just about the second or third floors. I I think in some instances residential was used as a way to uh potentially entice developers, right,
to come because it's not always uh as profitable to have retail and commercial. Residential is sort of where the developers make their profit. But I think when we originally um obtained the property, it was pretty clear from the public that I mean there was there was
almost an immediate cry for us to put a um a deed restriction on the property that it would never be used for residential. So with that in mind, what is the likelihood of RFP responses if there is a restriction on residential? I I would say realistically
u there won't be too many thrilled developers if if if residential is precluded in other words the RFP act if it said in black and white there shall be no residential uses uh I think it's a mistake and I don't think I'm not sure
any developers would would respond or reply >> I agree with you >> it's not a real world it's not really a real world uh option now I want to say our our committee was divided on this and I was disappointed that we we couldn't get to the place where we said
it's not realistic but we couldn't um but I think realistically uh realistically and and also architecturally and also in terms of what's good for the town um you know my my thought would be that it's they're three-story buildings and the second and
third floors are apartments and and and condos perhaps but they can be apartments um I do I will say in you know I listen to people for nine months on this. You know, I listened carefully and talked to as many people as I could. Part of the feeling among towns people
comes from fright that they were going to they're going to end up with a Concordia. I mean, or there or people talk to me all the time, well, what about the Westcot? I mean, these buildings are not the scale of the Concordia. They're not the scale of the WCOT. And I know people don't want that sort of thing. I don't want that sort of
thing. The committee doesn't. But if the RFP is written very well um you know the the the square footage you get will be controlled the you might you might say not more than eight or 10 you know apartment units or condo units. I mean
there is a way you know we don't have to be frightened of the Concordia or the Westcot. It's, you know, it's not a reason to ban residential, but >> and I understand that and I get the point that the that that might be in the best interest for the town, but the response from the town upon purchase was
pretty clear that residential should not be considered for that lot. And that lot was being purchased at for the community at large and not for individual or wealthy members of the community to purchase apartments or condos there. So, y >> well, that was not reflected in 550
responses. I mean, you know, that was you talked about when the when the land was purchased three years ago, >> right? When town meeting authorized the purchase of the land, correct? >> Yeah. Right. So, I mean, we our committee talked a lot about that. We said, what was what was the town meeting telling us? What were they doing? What
did what what impression did they have as to what would be built? Uh certainly a lot of people were under the impression it would be a pretty pretty full park. Um uh but it was interesting, you know, at the public forum, you you probably remember I showed, you know,
the committee showed a full a full park and then it showed three plans that had buildings and mixed uses. Uh and and in our responses, no well, very few people expressed that the idea that they would not like to see residential. I mean, I
>> did. >> Sorry, Brian, but this this is Doug. I think that's because no one no one >> no one knew about it. >> Nobody thought there was going to be residential there. That wasn't even >> It wasn't an explicit question. >> Wasn't even presented. I guess that's the >> Okay. >> How many How many parking spaces is that? >> 28.
>> It's about uh 28 to 30 >> 28 to 30 parking spaces. And that's 25,000 square feet of retail >> between. No, no, no. 25,000 ft of total building. Not not all retail. >> It total building of of both rows of those buildings. >> Yes. If you add the two buildings
together and if they're two stories, they total 25,000 square feet, >> under 6,000. It looks like >> each think of each footprint as 6,000. >> I just want to know how 30 parking spaces is able to support that amount of retail. That's
>> I mean, well, I said I said at the beginning it's it's I I'd like to see a little more parking, but it would work. It's No, absolutely. every plan. Look at all 30 plans. They you could add you really could add 20 30% to all the parking solutions you have. But but we
were trying we were the committee was really sort of committed to trying to achieve >> all things at once, you know. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> And and Brian, what's the split? It looks about half. Is that is that kind of >> It's Yeah, very close. It's it's 52% uh
commercial, the front half, and 48% green space. So, and and here's an interesting thought. We didn't start out we didn't give that to ourselves as the percentage that that was that was by default at the end. So, that's really healthy. In other words, that came that
split came about organically. So, we said, you know, what how could buildings be arranged? What's a reasonable square footage? Can we create another place? And it was only after we did that we measured everything out and we said, "Oh, look, look, by accident it's 50/50." you know. Um,
>> so how many parking spaces do we have now in that parking lot? And what does this >> about? About about 110. >> Okay. So from 110 this brings it down to about 30. Yes. >> Right. >> And that is including 10 to 12 residential units that would be
also be utilizing that parking >> if if if if there were res >> with this plan. Yes. Right. >> Yeah. If there were. Okay. >> Um and we did talk about that a bit. the the committee, you know, as I said, the committee was very very split about this issue, but the committee did say if if
there were residential, we would assign only one space per apartment. We we would not assign two because that simply can't be. >> We can't mathematically it's >> Yeah, mathematically it's it's too much. So, we would just >> I can appreciate that the committee was divided on this topic, but
>> but if it's D1 is not feasible without residential. or you've already said that, right? >> Well, what else is is less likely feasible than not? >> I think it's less likely, but it's conceivable that somebody would put office office space up there, >> but then that needs parking also, right?
So, >> y Okay. >> Yeah. Let's just go to the next slide, D. >> Okay. So, this shows a double lot option. the committee recommended uh K1
can't see the one but um this would be you can it looks familiar because it's essentially the same principles the same concepts >> just just ballooned out a little bit >> um and so I I don't really probably need to belver it again is the the central space and it's a community space the
parking here is about 50 spaces in total but still it's a little light for the buildings now the either of these plans could be adjusted. I mean, the the town could cut back the square footage of the building, you know, leave leave 30 parking spaces and cut back. I mean, the
town could, for example, leave off that last 40 foot segment on both sides and thereby bring the building square footage into a better relationship with the amount of parking. I mean, so these these plans can be modified. They aren't meant to be set in stone. It's it's to
show a direction and a concept. Um, >> Brian, I just I I'm sorry to interrupt you again, but I just want to note that the town is not currently uh pursuing purchase of the full lot. So, just just for the folks at home, in case they missed our meeting last week,
>> we are pursuing a LOI with the church to purchase a portion of the lot, which would be approximately half. >> So, just to say, >> yep. Um the comm the committee uh didn't did not take a position on whether you know we just didn't make a
recommendation should the town purchase a portion or or or any or any part of the lot. Um it would be log it would be logical for us to take a position on it because these plans you know obviously depend or not on whether the town pursues that second lot but we just
didn't simply didn't have time to do it. Uh so we so therefore we didn't make a recommendation. Um, >> and I think what you've just said numerous times is, you know, any you basically recommended a recipe, right? The ingredients to the recipe.
>> Yes. >> Some you can add more, you can add less. They're meant to be a little bit more fluid than they are. This is exactly what this is the special number, right? The committee decided 57% should be park and >> Well, no, no, no. I want to correct you there. We did not do that.
>> I know. That is what I'm saying. saying this you recommended ingredients to the process >> and now we are able to sort of move around and slide to figure out how those ingredients work whether it is one and a half lots whether it is two lots whether it is one lot but the concepts the
philosophies are there for us to consider >> yes yes the the the the thing that's that is fixed you're right absolutely right what you said the thing that is fixed though is that we grouped the buildings the all the committee felt strongly that the buildings are grouped
toward Humphrey Street and that the green space is sort of at the coastline side of the site. So that was that was important to every member of the committee because the idea is to bunch bunch the activity along Humphrey Street
uh take advantage of the retail synergy um and then leave whatever green space is is there let that be naturally be along the coastline. It it also works very well with the coastline access. it just makes sense for the organization um
of of the plan. Um and uh the the only I guess the only other thing I'd add is that at we only had two committee meetings in the last month um where we could really um talk about what the select board, you know, has been doing
in terms of pursuing a sale or talking about leasing the restaurant. you know, we heard when everyone else heard that the Athenus family was leaving the restaurant and we talked long and hard about whether it made sense to lease it and we feel like um if if the if the
select wanted to make a decision at some point in the next few months um we don't have we don't need to wait two years or three years to get started uh on on a plan. Um, obviously if the if at some point if at some point and the committee talked a lot about this because, you
know, we're for the town. We were, you know, we're for the town. We want to help the town do the right thing. If if this if and these are select board decisions, but we all thought if the select board decided to uh say, look, we'll give we'll give pursuing the second lot, you know, some period of
time, four months, five months, and then we if we can't get it done by then, we take we take G1, we can start on G1. So the so this isn't a situation where the town may want a tenant in the building. Uh because there simply wouldn't you
wouldn't even need a tenant for a year. We we we as a town we could get an RFP out the door and start soliciting developers to build G1. And you know it's not more than it's not more than a year to get that that thing going. You know, I'd just like to say that I um
thank you so much for your hard work. >> Um I've attended almost every single one of these meetings >> and I historically attend a lot of public meetings, especially as a select board
member. So when I say that these meetings were really hard, that's close to an understatement. you had multiple very powerful personalities. Um, you know, there was a lot of
contention consistently, meeting after meeting after meeting, yet you were able to get through a lot of this work and come up with exactly what Katie is referring to, a recipe, ingredients on how to put
everything together. And I just want to say thank you very much, you know, for me for all your hard work and I'm sure you're going to be very happy that now your committee's work is finished and you can enjoy the fruits of your labor
and we can now move on and start to think as a committee as a select board on the right way to move forward and to continue to gather some more information. >> I I would I would second all that. Uh
the entire committee's done a a launching pad for uh bringing this to a conclusion. >> Sorry, Doug. Do you choppy there for a minute? Would you mind repeating yourself? >> Oh, it wasn't wasn't worth repeating, but I just said I think No, no, I just I
think I I second what Marielle had said. I think the committee's done incredible amount of work and uh provide us with a great launching pad to bring this to a conclusion now. Okay, great. Okay. >> Um, so, uh, just so folks at home are aware up, if you aren't familiar with
the schedule, as Brian mentioned, that they met last night to approve the, um, the report, which is now before the board. We were provided that this morning. So, um, we haven't really, you know, had too much of a chance to to
digest it. We all have not been to every meeting like Mary Ellen. Um, although I have watched many. >> David was >> David. anybody else basically I haven't attended all of them is one thing uh watching from home and trying to stay in the loop uh but um I think there needs
to be some time for us to go over the um >> absolutely >> the report to then come back together reflect on what we feel like the report is saying to us and the you know the how you've put forth the ingredients and how we go forward.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So we we only voted last night. We we we we wanted to get the report to you much sooner. Um but you know with 12 people it's just really hard. We we revised the report I think six times. Everybody had to get a whack at it. So it just was a you know it was
a hard work thing, you know. Um and but in the end uh I want to say this, you know, it >> it the first two or three meetings I was in despair. I didn't see how this group of 12 people, you know, were ever going to agree on anything. Um but we we slowly and painfully and with lots of
argument did get closer to each other and by the end we had quite a coalition around the principles and the ideas and people were excited. Um uh in the end the report was accepted last night 9 to one um 9 to1 two people couldn't come. One of them sent a note to me and said
that person was in favor of it. The other one I never got in touch with. So you could think of it as 10 to one with one not you know in communicado. Um um and uh the thing I I I guess the last thing I would say uh is I do think it's
notable that this diverse group of people we we were 12 chairman on this committee uh this was a committee of 12 chairman um that this group who have strong opinions that differ wildly on
many of the aspects of this project unanimously and feelingly felt that leaving the Haton restaurant loses when you when you submit it to the filters that we know are important including and most of all the financial end result of
of of whatever goes there. So, so that's a that's a significant factor and and of the 550 responses that people sent us, maybe 10 maybe 10 said leave the restaurant, you know. So, that's that's
really interesting. Um, >> thank you. >> You can. >> So, so Brian Brian, can you can you share the detailed financial calculations that the committee did to come to that incredibly precise decision? >> Well, no. Yes, I can. Our numbers are
not precise. Our conclusion is is is is firm. But we >> Well, it's pretty hard to have a pretty firm conclusion without precise numbers, huh? >> We think that that G1, for example, if G1 is uh two stories and and if it if it
does include a residential component, that's you got to say that in fairness, but if the second floor is residential >> and your committee was totally split on residential, >> absolutely down the middle. Um, so it's a tough call. Absolutely. Uh,
>> but if it if it includes a residential component on the second floor, then we estimated that was in the neighborhood of $230,000 per year property tax, approximately 230,000. And we we went through the
numbers a number of times. And if you do three stories, obviously it's higher. It's maybe it's $350,000 in property tax uh from from a 35,000 square foot development. Again, >> is that zoned for three stories?
>> I'm trying to I'm trying to picture a threestory building >> on the front of Humphrey Street. >> Well, think of Popo's Hot Dogs. That's three stores, >> right? With the bottom of it being retail and then >> two floors of residential. >> That's right. >> And the 30 spots for parking. >> Yep. Yep.
>> Okay. Um but the the thing to remember is the the the thing the the thing to remember is um if the committee if the select board feels that that ratio of parking is is too weak >> then then we cut cut back the square
footage of the building um >> the square footage of the building or the square footage of the park. >> No, you'd have to cut through you'd have to cut back the square footage of the building a little bit. So then that reduces the commercial space and the residential space. >> That reduces the need for parking.
>> It it it's it's bringing the right it's bringing the slip of the buildings into a better ratio with the parking you can provide. Okay. >> Now it is a municipal downtown site. >> Most I mean the trend in town planning is to recognize that in in a municipal
downtown site, you're never going to really provide the parking that uh you know that you can provide elsewhere. It's a downtown site, you know, and and people, you know, in some sense, people are asked to >> figure out a way. They have to park four blocks away. They have to they have to
cope with it, but it's a but that's the nature of a downtown site, >> right? >> Um now, we're not we wouldn't ask residential units to do that. We would give each one one space. So, it's not realistic to say to an apartment, you know, or a condo, you can't park anywhere near you, right? Um um so yeah,
but back to Doug's question. Um our number when you guys have a chance to read the report, you'll see that we give ranges of numbers because who who can tell you the exact property tax value, but we we based it on realistic assessments. I mean, we're very familiar with the with the $11 per thousand and
the commercial tax rate of 22 per thousand. I mean, we we used all the real numbers and and used them for the square footage of the building. So we I mean we weren't interested in kiding the players. Um we you know we're serving the town. We want to try and be accurate
to the extent that we can. Um um but we looked at you know we looked at what a full park for example would cost. That would that would be all town money. It would cost eight or n million to do a full park. We the the entire with the exception of one person the entire
committee just laughed at that. I mean >> look at the duress we're under financially. we're we're we're just not in a great spot to spend 8 million bucks. Um so it didn't take a lot of convincing for the committee to say we need to generate some revenue and the
idea was to in in our mind we needed to compare it to uh one of the comparisons we needed to make was you know does it beat a potential restaurant uh occupant you know whatever a new restaurant could generate. Um that was that was certainly something we had in our mind. So, I I I
think I think the beauty of it is you could you could beat the revenue from a restaurant um and achieve many other things. I mean I mean think about it. If the restaurant if the restaurant were to stay, you got a 100 car parking lot. You could cut it back a little, I'm sure,
but it's still a giant parking lot in downtown on the street. Uh and then the big the other big thing our committee talked a lot about was realistically some some operator is any operator going to come into a restaurant for a one two or three year
lease and put put in two three four million whatever it is uh and then and then he and then he's going to leave in three years. There's nobody who's going to do that. It's that's not real world thinking. Um and and uh >> I don't is is anybody asking somebody to come in or mean and we had at resident
comment we had a gentleman come in asking for the RFP right away. I mean there's there's still a lot of things hanging out there >> and those those variables have to be you know the equation. >> Yep. Absolutely. We really looked at, you know, we looked
at the possible options. You know, if somebody ca if somebody ca I mean, conceptually, if somebody came in and said, "I'll I'll do that, >> you know, is that a person who's going to pay uh a property tax and a rent and so forth and so on and and then still have money?" >> Well, I think we'd have to find out
through an RFP. I have to be honest with you, I've been at 90% of your meetings and I don't remember any extensive conversations about that. And >> well, we did this the last two meetings and you were not at the last two meetings, right? Okay. We only did this the last two meetings. >> Oh, just the last two meetings
>> because it became an issue. I mean, you know, I was here and spoke about the warrant article, but we really hurried. I have to tell you, we held two meetings under duress >> because we wanted to be relevant. We wanted to be we saw what would come up at town meeting >> and we wanted to be able to offer the
town some thoughts that would be relevant. And we we are alarmed. I mean, we really are alarmed at the idea that this town would would think it has the the managerial horsepower to to pull off some of these more complex uh you know, arrangements uh you know,
buying buying another lot, needing to go to negotiate and do it and then and then what is the plan if another portion of the lot is is purchased? I mean, the this is not cons, you know, we this is not conservative behavior for a town to
do this. We're not property managers. We're not developers. You know, we can't build things. I mean, we're we really uh put ourselves in a in I think a you know, it's a dangerous and risky proposition to to go forward too ambitiously because we're a municipality. And uh
>> well, Brian Brian, sorry to interrupt you there, but I mean, isn't that isn't that even accentuated? I mean, by the now you're asking us to go forward with
tearing down the restaurant. Um, and then and you guys want to do it right away. >> No, that's incorrect. >> That's incorrect, Doug. Not right away. >> Okay. >> Not right away. >> You don't want You don't want us to rent it out. So, uh,
>> leave an empty building. Oh, here here's >> here's what we here's what our committee had to talk for a while. Just >> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Finish. >> Yes. Um, but then you want us to take the leap of faith that we're going to be able to,
you just saying that we're not developers, but you want us to find somebody to, and this whole thing is predicated on being able to develop something that has retail,
three4s of which isn't even on the street. It's running back towards the park. >> Mhm. and then it requires office or residential on top. It's like it's we know uh from public comment tonight
uh word swirling around that there are people interested in really revitalizing the the restaurant. We have, as far as I'm aware, I have no idea of anybody that wants to, you know, create a brand
new little commercial residential complex there. So, I mean, that just feels like an even bigger swing at the fences of not knowing how that's really going to happen. >> The the Let me just be clear on one
thing that the gentleman was wrong who spoke earlier. We we we are not we are not Give me a chance. We are not asking that restaurant to be taken down immediately. And the the opposite. I stood up there and I said, I don't want the town to put out a million bucks to
to prepare a site. As Doug says it on conjecture, the way it's done is and and towns have done this. Our committee looked at a Shrewsbury RFP that was very similar. There's a municipal building and it be the demolition of that building doesn't occur until the whole
the plan is decided and an RFP an RFP is put out. you the the select board is talking about putting out an RFP to to get a restaurant operator. It's no different. You put out an RFP to solicit developer responses to create to create a plan. You Nancy, can you put E E4 on
E3 on the PL? It's >> no. Okay. Well, there are plan we show a you know we didn't we didn't write it into the report but we show plans that have the same effect and impact that where the buildings are along the street parallel
to the street. The the point is there is no risk to G1 or E3 or E4 which show similar square footages because we won't start until a developer is on board. It's an RFP process. the town the town
carefully writes the RFP. I'll help write the RFP, but I mean the the select board carefully writes the RFP to give the necessary parameters, ground rules, you know, and so forth. Then then the town sits with with suppose three or four developers respond. You pick the
one, the town picks the one it thinks is closest and then it sits down and there's a there's a conversation. It might be three conversations and and you the town will not proceed, will not sign on a dotted line with the developer until the developer is happy and then town's happy and and and and the
building doesn't come down until that process occurs and the and and the hathon would be demolished by the developer which is done typically by a m by a developer than a m municipality. Can you find E3 or E4? Katie, Katie, we
I so >> looks like there's a um I'm sorry to interrupt you, Danielle. Go ahead. There's a hand raised online and I was thinking >> we might let him speak. Mr. Keller, I believe it is. >> Is this Mr. Keller who was Yes. Go ahead. >> Who stood up and was wrong? >> Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.
>> Yeah, I I spoke earlier. Sorry, I had to cut up. Um I just uh wanted to thank the committee. I think the drawings look great. Uh but I you know the I still think that realistically that's it none
of that can happen in the short term and I just want you know and I apologize if I said they wanted to raise it immediately. I didn't mean any offense by that so I'm sorry he brought that up. Uh I just wanted to correct that. I mean I I again I appreciate all the work. Uh, but I just think that you're right in
one regard that yeah, I don't think a traditional restaurant operator is going to go in there and um invest a ton of money, but I do think there's a possibility where possibly someone could operate a restaurant business and make a more community focused space in the
meantime. that was um something that you know the town maybe gets behind and that helps further along the future process cuz as we saw in the present a few agenda items before the the numbers weren't great on the forecast. So I can't foresee uh I I would think you'd
want to get something that the town can use and maybe try out and yeah I agree we shouldn't be in the real estate business as a town but we are. So, um I just again I'm excited to try and present something that would uh be uh beneficial and you know a way for the
town to kind of try out what the town could do then. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Danielle. >> I forgot what I was going to say, but thank you. >> Oh, >> um so I'm trying to wrap my head around this whole thing and I think that
where I see it getting off track is this. You guys did so much work. I mean, I I'm reading I've read through the pages and you and this committee was tasked with giving the select board options for that parcel, right? And
that's kind of where it ended. That was the scope. We needed to see what it could look like, what it could potentially be, pluses and minuses. And you've done that. You've done that and more, right? But I think that after that part of it, the the questions
about RFPs and renting and leasing and the the pros versus cons, that's kind of that's for this board to decide and evaluate and figure out, right? It comes back to us no matter what. Um, so you
know, I know one thing and I haven't had 550 or 450 people contact me, but the people that have, and there have been a lot, have categorically said they do not want residential development in that parcel. Right? So, if I take that piece
out of your equation, I don't know how viable it is. I don't know what else I'm left with for stories two and three if I have to depend on it being flex office space when 90% of the world works from home >> that's not a sure bet for me that's not
a that's not I you know I'd be that's a risky proposition in my head right >> I agree >> the other piece for me is everybody and their mother in this town complains about parking and not having enough of it so looking at this with
reducing the parking to create this fabulous looking little community environment. I just don't know where people are going to park and how they're going to get there. And if and if people complain about it now and we put this, you know, courtyard there, we're only going to hear more complaints about it,
right? And if we can't financially make it viable plus that, I think people will be up in arms. So, I'm trying to really understand that those pieces, that's where I am. I think Danielle there are some solutions for parking that are not contemplated on and they were not in the
scope of what the Hawthorne reuse committee was meant to be contemplating. Right. Right. So like >> we there's been discussion about uh the St. John's you know back lot potentially coming back >> which I don't even consider honestly. I'm not even conceptually putting that
in my head. There are just other there are other things on the table outside of the Hawthorne property and the church property which may or may not become parking in some form of another that could be up for consideration for any of these concepts. So I and that's not
within the purview. We didn't ask them to look at that and it would be unfair to put that on you to answer because >> Right. Oh, absolutely not. We the only reason we're even I'm I'm thinking about it or we have thought about it as a board is related to the Hadley hotel reuse and how you know what happens
there and how that parking works out and you know so I think there are some solutions out there and we'll see what comes to fruition with and nothing will solve it 100% but >> no >> and but right now as a you know as as as
the public we don't have use of the Hawthorne parking anyway. There was until a few days ago, there was even living without it. >> There was an attendant that pre pro precluded and prevented residents and and folks from the region who were visiting Humphrey Street from using this uh at all unless you were
>> dining or or at at the Hawthorne restaurant. So, >> Mr. Town Administrator, are we now allowed to park at are residences of the swamps of Swampskit in the region? >> They own it. >> They still have a lease. >> They don't own it. They lease it.
>> They lease it until December 9th. still own the parking lot under their lease. >> So own the parking >> they still have a leaseold. >> Can I just answer David's question? >> We will be I'm more than happy to talk to both people on the operation side town and the legal side. Right now they
still have a lease. Just because they're not operating does not mean that they do not still have >> care custody and control of that property. >> Yep. >> That the lease expires. Our authorization to do anything with them expires, you know, two, three weeks after that. So more than happy between now and the 9th which will give me two
meetings I think with you all uh to put together a plan of what could be possible what makes sense and also the other thing that I keep repeating I did with quotes making sure that our insurance appropriately covers that use so that we're all in as best your
position possible should we decide to go down that road it means me bringing information to you so you all can direct us hey I would I would add one thing about the residential and height issue if if you look at Humphrey Street now between between the Fish House and Mission, you
know, that's the Humphrey Street corridor. If you look at that and you walk up and down it as our committee did, um >> at least half the buildings are now three stories and it's a formula that many of them have sort of the retail commercial on the first floor and and
second and third floor apartments. So that's >> that exists now in in the majority of the buildings. do the walk, go from the fish house to the mission. So, what our committee uh is recommending is is not an aberration from what's on Humphrey
Street. It's really more of a continuation of what's on Humphrey Street. And as I said, the buildings, as Doug Doug made a good point when he said the buildings are turned perpendicular to the street, it's not ideal for retail, commercial, and shops. They they're much happier if there's they're
turned parallel to the street. those plans that could happen. But but the bigger point to I think keep keep an eye on is what does what's the character of Humphrey Street now? I mean you you said yourself that you're hearing from people who don't want >> apartments above the stores.
>> That's interesting. But >> no, no, they don't want more residential. >> They don't want more residential. But I mean we're in a sense the committee is embracing probably the most traditional town planning formula that exists across the country. I mean shops above, you
know, rest apartments above the stores is very traditional town planning. It's hard to hard to committ not embracing that. >> Pardon me. >> Your committee is split on that. >> Yes, that's correct. All I'm saying is that's right. We are >> right. >> And I'm saying okay, but
>> I think >> that the select board can think, you know, independently of of us, right? They probably will. So I'm all I'm suggesting is that the select board be be really familiar with what's on Humphrey Street now so that you know I want you guys to make the right
decision. The town I mean the town wants you guys to make the right decision. So that's a really >> I think we think back to a year ago as you said we were a lot of us were in this room with a lot of other people >> saying a lot of things about the HDR plan. H is it HCR
>> HDR HDR plan right? >> Yes. Yes. >> And and some of the missteps on Humphrey Street >> in retrospect, right? Hindsight's 2020. >> And how uh frustrating it can be to go down that
street and to see threetory buildings that are only residential, right? >> And to see that that blocks the view of the ocean and to see that it, you know, that it really maybe if we had the opportunity to do again, we wouldn't do it that way. So I
think when from that conversation and from the conversation po right post purchase it really felt to me like there was a resounding like let's get as far as away from residential as possible. I think that is one of the reasons why the highlight of
open space was so strong in the Warren article because it was to say this is not the thing that has been happening on that street. Yes. >> For the past x amount of years. And so I I understand the fair and balanced approach that your committee takes and I
appreciate that, but I'm just saying like from what I heard from a public position up until, you know, tonight when we're talking about it, it's like well maybe taking what is isn't necessarily the approach for this particular space as the open or
mouth of Swampscott and you know the meant to be the gem, the entrance into our town. We don't want it to look like the rest of the street. We actually wish the rest of the street maybe didn't look that way and we actually wish in hindsight we would have done smaller buildings with maybe retail on the bottom floor but we can't do all that
over. We can focus on this and do this the way that maybe is going to work better for us going forward. So that's just an option. >> No, I hear you. But I think the town's traumatized by the Concordia. I mean we heard people say we don't want the Concordia. The town is reacting strongly against the Concordia which is four and
a half stories. So I I understand exactly what you said, but my my response to people who were saying that would be okay, but do you like, you know, do you like the Cassidy Insurance building with pitched roofs and the third floor is in a pitched roof and and it's a human scale and so on their
apartments. Everyone goes, "Oh, I like that building." >> Sure. >> So it's a tough job to figure out what people are saying. Do they don't want to fine, but I'm I not I'm here to listen to residents. I'm not here to convince them of something else. So if they say
to me, I don't want residential, I am responsible to figure out what the definition of what that looks like and how that means so that we're all using same definition bases. >> But I'm not here to talk them into it because that's how the plan has to go forward financially. >> It's I I hear you. It's it's it's a
select you guys have a tough job, but but it it you owe I think you owe the town not just representation. It isn't just count the votes and that's how you vote. It's and you know this >> I wish it were that easy but >> yeah I know I know you know this so I don't mean to preach to you but it's
it's you you you may the select board may have to say what what in our judgment works >> great and and can we make things work and and democracy is part of it for sure I mean we had people come to our meetings we listen we try to try to understand what they're saying yep
>> um but but people say a lot of things I mean at one of our public meetings some somebody stood up and said Humphrey Street is dark you know, and it's like, you know, it's not dark. I mean, whatever plan you're for, Humphrey Street is not dark. It's an east west street. Uh it gets sunlight all the
whole day, and it's just an amazing, you know, amazingly light street. But in any case, um the the the west, we heard from people, we don't want a Westcot, we don't want a Concordia. And >> well, the WCOT wasn't even built when we started talking about the evolution of the site. >> Well, people in retrospect, yes. Okay.
But >> people came to our committee meetings and said that >> listen I I think that we you've heard from all of us say we appreciate your committee's work gratefully. We didn't envy the position you were in. We saw the struggles and you guys pushed through it. That's something to be commended. I think we all agree on that
front and you know we just got the report. Appreciate the um presentation. Um, and I think we have to digest this, get it back on a agenda in the near future to have conversations about what this report looks like for all of us and
where we go from here. >> So, really appreciate both of you coming and all the hard work. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thanks. >> Is it brief? Appreciate it. >> You spend 9 months waiting for this result. I think that would I would strongly suggest that you go out with an
RFI or an RFQ to the business community and ask them in a short period of time. I think you could probably get it in 60 or 90 days. Real presentations from um developers and users um that would give you financials, that would give you
uses, would give you renderings and we give you a complete presentation in much less time and their purpose is a selfish one. It's to get the highest and best use of the site. In order for you to reach a decision, you need as much of
that information. Even if you don't want to hear it or you don't want to consider it, you should at least have it in front of you to be able to make an informed decision. And that doesn't happen unless you go out to the business community and ask them to respond RFI or RFQ. No cost to the town.
>> Thank you, Charlie. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tara. >> Appreciate it. Um, okay. >> Are you guys having did you guys have a party after your last meeting? Did you have lawyers at the >> Hawthorne >> to continue to participate, you know, in
in in some fashion? I mean, what I what I presented here was just touching the tops of our, you know, of what we uh Tara's not I'm not vol I think really clear from many of your members that they're they're pretty much all set with the process. >> I think I I just think we should be
really clear that your committee's work is complete and this select board is very appreciative of it. But Tara, you guys are now retired. If you want to arrange your going away party. >> Okay, >> thank you.
>> Moving on to uh item number five, review of special town meeting warrant discussion and votes on articles for inclusion in the warrant. Thank you again uh Brian and Tara. Thank you. >> Um let's and Charlie and Neil and
everybody's leaving now. >> Thank you. Don't lose that envelope. >> Okay. >> I don't know. I'd like to >> Nick, you this is for us to go through to vote um on your recommendation >> as long as you all are comfortable on doing that tonight.
>> Um nothing has changed. The one question that is outstanding in this is the adjustment to tax rates. Um we can >> hold Hold on one second. Brian, your microphone Brian Brian, your microphone is still live. So although we can't hear you, people at home might. So I just want to caution you. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you for letting me know. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Go ahead, Nick. Sorry. >> That's fine. Um, so we can go through an order when we get the adjustment in tax rates. There's a determination that I would love to get from you all on where you would like that to be. Um,
and just in terms of preparation, I know I mentioned it tomorrow. We're getting together with the moderator, uh, town council and others just to make sure we have things lined up. So >> great. You know, I wanted to give you that background, but this is for you all to have discussion on individual topics if you'd like or to make recommendations.
>> Okay. Are we looking at voting before fin? >> I feel like we >> they are they are meeting tomorrow. So, if you would like, we could have discussions and hold the vote till the that evening. Um I don't necessarily think that's the best from a planning
standpoint since I'm already going to try to give you an update on assessors right then. Um we have yes we have in the past because of we traditionally wait till fin come we have in the past voted the evening up Amy I recall in the past has gotten that information to the moderator
so that we could then present the you know favorable action 5 to0 and then we could do that >> we can do that and if >> I mean I think for the financial articles it probably makes sense I don't know how do others I mean, they they're they all have a
financial impact. >> They all have financial impact. >> In fairness, if we're going to do that, we can we could use tonight for any discussion or request for additional information you may need. And >> I think you know the one I would defer to you now that I know this and I apologize, but on the tax rate
>> adjustment, is that one that you normally leave to FINCOM first or that you would set a number and they would recommend? >> Um, I think we've set the number. We've set the number and then they've recommend then they've >> gotten on board or not. >> I don't know how. >> So, I mean, are we really going to hold off on approving bills of prior fiscal
years? No, >> let's let's just >> Okay, >> let's take the vote and move forward. >> Right. >> So, article one is, as David just mentioned, the approval of prior year's fiscal bills, >> prior fiscal year's bills. >> Um, they're listed. We can speak to them
each individually or if you have any questions, Patrick and I are here to answer them. >> Do these continue to grow? I mean, it seems like the first time we saw the warrant, there were three or four items and now there's, you know, >> 15 or so. >> Looks like the same list as last meeting. >> Yeah,
>> I don't believe anything's been added since we were together two weeks ago. >> Nothing has changed since we last looked at the warrant. Um, from when we first looked at the warrant and last time we met. Um, a couple items were added that we added to the table that were
presented to you last time, but nothing's changed since then. >> But nothing's changed since. Okay. >> I wasn't at the last meeting. >> That makes sense that it has changed since I last seen. >> Yes, it did. >> So, it's yes to both. You and Danielle. It has not changed since Danielle's seen it. It has changed since you fair.
>> Right. >> All right. So I'll entertain a vote then um >> of action to support the article number one approving the bills. >> So moved >> second and we will take a roll call. Doug >> I
>> Mary Ellen >> I >> David >> I >> and Danielle >> I >> and I am an I. So five to O. We vote favorable action on that article two. Article two, to give it a thumbnail that
I'm sure Patrick may cringe at, um we're doing the shuffle for things that we know need to be shuffled. So rather than waiting until the end of the year, we want to make these adjustments right now. >> Yeah. >> Um so that it the what's appropriated reflects what we anticipate actually spending.
>> Okay. >> So I'll make a motion. >> So move second. >> Uh Marielen. Doug. >> Hi. >> Danielle, >> I >> David. I >> and I am an I. So, we have 5 there. >> Uh, and that was favorable, right?
>> Mhm. >> Okay. Just to make sure. >> Article three had been related to my overly optimistic hope that we might be able to have at least one come before us. Uh, I do not anticipate that. So, this is one that when we get to town meeting, we'll be moving through regardless.
>> Um, so I was going to talk to them tomorrow about what whether it's withdraw and definitely postpone. I don't know exactly what language, >> okay, >> the moderator would prefer and we'll figure that out tomorrow with council. So, we can we can leave that to Monday and we can table that. >> Absolutely. >> Okay.
>> Uh, article four, >> article 4 is an annual transfer that we do uh for the homeless and foster care transportation costs. >> So, I I just want to comment on this. Um what we what we did was this actually we just started doing this a few years ago
in making sure that when this money came back in it didn't sit in our oper it didn't sit in our town account that it was moved over to the schools um that was an agreement we made I think it was two and a half years ago um
>> but which it it should go to schools however there is a new situation that's involved the schools now have in the revolving account. They have $574,000 um that they have retained in this in this revolving account which
>> you're talking about the NATO revolving account. >> It's called Yep. the NATO revolving account. Um and I think I think we should move this to the the later town meeting until we resolve what's happening with that revolving account. But what does this have to do with
foster care transportation reimbursement? >> So this there would be no reason to put this this money could still sit in the operating in the town operating account versus moving it over into the schools. If the schools are already sitting on
five I think the question that I have here the schools are sitting on $574,000 in the re in the Nihant revolving account. money was never spent on any budgeted items last year. So, until we really figure out what has happened
there, why was that never disclosed prior to the budget? Um, even when we're looking to approve the budget, I think this money should still remain in the town account and get everything worked out and then figure out what to do from there.
Have you has I think Nick has had conversations about that revolving account with the schools. Correct. >> I have. >> Right. So there is resolution or is there not or were at least clearer on the process of what happened? >> They they provided in a meeting with it was Patrick and I sat sat down with
Jason >> um and Cheryl to talk about how and >> and why and why >> how and why the the discussion of that. Um I don't know you know with this um obviously I defer to how you all would like to move forward.
>> Mhm. >> I mean I before any money is I want to I want to know what's going on here and you know this is a lot of money. This is almost $600,000 is sitting in an account that the school
committee is calling their their cushion. But I think we should be really careful before we start calling things that way. Right. >> I'm only repeating the school committee. I'm not I'm repeating the school. >> Our town administrator has had conversations with the school department
that are that are explanations about what you're talking about. So I don't want to go and say that they're doing X or they're padding or without really knowing the full picture. Right. And I think we need more information to know. >> Yeah. I have no idea. I have no idea. >> Right. Right. Exactly. Just to be clear,
I'm I am only repeating exactly what was said at school committee meetings. >> You're saying at the school committee meeting they use the word cushion. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Town Administrator, can we get a memo or some kind of written
>> notification so we can all be brought to this or what the conversation and there's a memo that I believe was drafted. I might I actually think I am now confusing things with it. Um, but yes, we can put something together. We can share it before town meeting. We could
share it in advance of that, but deliberate on it as a group in person at at that meeting prior to town meeting. Um, you know, >> I would assume that memo would come from Cheryl, >> right? >> For her to give an explanation on how
that account got to its level and what >> the plan is. >> Exactly. And I would I would coordinate with Jason and Cheryl >> along with our finance staff. Absolutely. >> So I mean basically you're saying let's
withhold $26,000 that we're underou because you feel like we haven't resolved this other issue which is much greater. >> Yeah. And that is what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't want to I don't want to do anything financially until we have real clarity on what's happening.
I mean, >> I'm going to say that I disagree with that. >> It feels a little bit like punishing when we don't know the full picture. And I know you're saying the picture is there. >> You don't know the full picture, so you don't want to give it to them. And I'm saying, well, I don't know the full picture, so I'd rather >> give it to them. So, I think >> it's not like
>> I don't want to speak for anyone that works for the schools or the school committee, but I think that we would have an opportunity to ask for greater explanation and more detail as a part of the budget process that we're engaging in. And I my sense so far is that there would there would be an openness to
having a discussion around how and why they came to the the conclusions and made the decisions that they did. The leverage is certainly different as we get into a full budget discussion as opposed to a reimbursement that's underou. That would be my only
>> feedback. >> I don't want to fault them in advance when there is a very logical reason and explanation for why they did what they did. personally >> and it seems a little bit like I I I get the idea, but um it seems
uh >> punitive. I >> I know it's all school committee, you know, school money. Um but it seems to be kind of mixing a couple things up. Um and I think if I'm reading understanding, I'm not sure why we're not directly talking about what's happening except for the fact that the schools aren't here to talk about it for
themselves, >> right? Um but um >> I'll I'll answer that directly. Yes, I would like them to be here to discuss the decision-m process rather than me paraphrasing a conversation. >> Yeah. >> Right. Um I just want to make that explicit just in case people were trying
to understand what was going on here. Um but I do think that if I understood what you were saying, Nick, that that $600,000 is still going to be there. um either it's going to be I don't know what the flexibility is for the schools
to spend that money on you know whatever they want or there are restrictions on it um but they'll either spend it on you know so I guess first of all do we know the answer to that question is it totally flexible what they spend it on or not >> my understanding is that they could have
spent it completely down to zero >> so long as it was in pursuit of the education of nahhat students right >> it has to be used for for educational purposes nant student for educational purpose which means the middle school and the high school
>> and it can be spent on general education >> there's there is flexibility to it but I honestly I would much prefer that this discussion includes members of the >> school staff school leadership >> so that we're not misrepresenting anything >> correct
>> okay so maybe this is a very clear one that we should wait to vote on until at least until before town meeting. Right before town meeting is see if there's more information we can get. >> Okay. >> Does any everybody agree with Doug? >> Yep.
>> We'll table it till then. >> What? I don't really What What did Doug So what does Doug >> I think you're saying to table it till >> dis table it Doug. Is that your table article? >> Yeah. Just just just for the next week until we have you know our final final vote on things right before town meeting. >> Table the discussion of the vote not the
warrant article. >> Right. I I think it's apples and oranges, but I mean I'm certainly happy to go with what. Okay, we can always circle back. Let's move on to article five. Um, and this is to
resend a vote under article six of the May 25 annual town meeting transfer of free cash or special education reserve fund. You want to >> Are we on six? Is that I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Yep. Article five, which is to rescend article six. >> Okay, I that's where I get confused. >> Yes, sorry,
>> my eyes moved between the two. Um, this is uh it was an identified exceedence of the I believe it's 2% cap that is supposed to be in the reserve fund that Cheryl identified uh alerted other staff
and they worked through sort of what the best way to do it. The state requires that you do not exceed 2% I believe the number is. Again, I apologize if I'm misspeaking, but I don't think I am. And this would get them back under um that threshold so as not to have violated the
special acts of 2016, I believe. >> And can you remind us what the transfer of free cash under article 6 at the May 2025 annual town meeting was? Was that 200? Was that 200,000 or 4 was 400,000? >> 425,000. >> 400,000. I >> I don't remember, Patrick.
>> It was 400,000. >> Oh, good memory, David. Okay. So, basically to say in layman's terms, we authorized the movement of this money. Moving that money would have put them over their threshold that the state requires they stay under. The money
never was moved. >> Correct. >> So, they never they never hit their threshold because the money money was never moved, but now we're rescending the authorization so that the money does not get moved and put them over their threshold. >> Correct. I think >> and the money just if I can just finish
the the it closes out to free cash because it's not appropriated to anything if this were to pass. >> Okay. >> So it doesn't go directly back into the general fund to be spent this year. It closes out to free cash at the end of the fiscal year. >> Right. Which Patrick >> I'm sorry to interrupt you. >> The reason we moved 400 over was because they were going to have to deplete the
entire special education fund. Patrick, that's what my notes show from last year. But they didn't have to deplete the special education fund. They actually I think finished it at 450 and
then the state also sent out another 150 >> question. Is that >> your recollection? >> I would say maybe less specifically more generally I think there was anticipated cost um you know forecasted need for
that fund. the need is >> under and obviously the vote would have put this account over some statuto limit. >> Okay. So >> right >> operationally it was not you know raised to us that it would be a concern to not have these funds because between
Medicaid receipts which go directly into the special education reserve fund and um the transfer contemplated in the next article it and the balance that's already accured in there it's within limits and also meets you know the needs as far as I was you know
>> right but currently their fund should be I think because if when I first heard this I thought well what They're not going to have they won't have the 400 thou they won't have the 400,000 but when I did a little bit of research they do have they do that that was an
anticipated need but they didn't need it at the end they still have they still finished out the year at I think 450 or close to it and then the state also advanced another
another 150 or 153 to multiple municipalities. So they should be up to probably close to 600 now, >> which is where they where the agreement actually is that there should be a $600,000
>> level. I can I can confirm they ended the fiscal year with $438,980 not including the $400,000 that was anticipated to be transferred. So >> Right. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. So I I I'll move to um have the select board support this. Yeah,
>> I'll second. >> I >> Doug, >> I >> Danielle >> I >> David >> I >> and I am an I. >> Okay. Similar similarly but different is to then app to then appropriate.
>> Correct. And this is the agree this is theou or the MOAU that we have with them at the end of the fiscal year based on turnbacks and other savings. And that this is what we would be transferring to them as part of that agreement. >> And this is under the 2% threshold. >> Correct.
>> Great. And when does >> Oh, okay. Second. You said David. >> Uh, did you say second? Daniel. Oh, Danielle. Sorry. Uh, David >> I. >> Danielle. >> I. >> Doug. >> Hi, >> Mary Ellen. >> I'm a no until we really understand the
whole financial situation here. >> Okay. I am an I. Um, so I just want to maybe it doesn't have to be now. It would just be great. Maybe you could just explain when these funds get moved because part of the uh like if
we had moved that 400,000 earlier then what would have happened or like what why didn't it get moved? When should it have gotten moved? When does this get moved? You don't have to answer now. We can >> Yeah. No, I I I I cannot answer that as
you're well aware, turning and looking at me with that smile. No, as to why it did not happen at the time, I that is a timing issue that I would defer. >> It can't happen until we vote. >> No, no, we voted in 2025
>> to appropriate those $400,000. They never got moved. The finance department didn't move from Is that what it is? >> No, it would have to come from free cash and it can't get >> from last year's, wasn't it? >> I can articulate. I talked to the accounting firm a little bit about this.
>> Um, so the $400,000 was voted in May >> and votes are either counted towards FY25 or FY26. This was a transfer into an account, not the operating budget. So, um, it was interpreted FY26. So, it's it's our free cash is already
reduced by this vote because it was voted prior to year end. Okay. >> So, free cash accounts for this $400,000. So it's less knowing that this money is intended to be transferred into this fund in FY26. So by rescending the
vote, those funds will then be available when we close out this fiscal year and it'll flow back into certification. >> But it means we're we can't count on we can't count 400,000 in our free cash evaluation. >> It's not it wouldn't be available to appropriate for other purposes during
this year. Correct. So just to put a finer point on it, Patrick, it is not that we didn't move it. It is that we should not have moved it yet or should we have moved it? >> That's my understanding. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> So then uh to for article six then when
on the timeline do they receive those funds if this gets voted on at in favorable action by town meeting in December? >> You don't have to answer now either. We can >> I will defer to the accounting firm because the experts on the timing of that last bill. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. And is that is that a net number or is that an additional >> 94? This is an additional. So this is we we're taking back the four 400 and we're giving them >> 94 80 94 >> two separate two separate things
>> entries. I just want to understand the operation of events and you're going to get back to me. Yes, I am. Thank you. >> We'll all learn from it. >> Great. >> Okay. Um, article seven is the adjustment to the tax rate, which we have not set a number for. Um, and I know tonight we
talked about where we anticipate the tax rate being. So, rough estimate, it's um, you know, approximately $15 of impact for every $100,000 in the buy down.
So, it's a decision that is obviously left to the board and PINCOM and others. Um, I will say it is outside of sort of good financial practice to be spending this free cash on things that are not one time and we've sort of made this a
an annual event. >> We have >> um so it it's just I want to acknowledge that before you know we will obviously take whatever direction um and vote is decided. >> Um but ideally free cash would be spent on a onetime expense. In many
communities, that's something like capital expense that may not have been anticipated or something like that as opposed to this. But as you think about what number you may want, I just wanted to give you that sort of approximately $15. And it's something that we can also wait to act on in case we have better information come the first.
>> Um, but in terms of thinking about it, for every $100,000 we spend on this, it's approximately $15 impact on the average home. >> Okay. >> Right. But this is the context about the school though, right? in terms of the promise that was made is >> right
>> is that is that that's the reason why we do this Nick it is kind of a capital expense that do you know that history >> a bit I I it's still something that I just wanted to not unsaid being my first time through the cycle with you all
>> yeah so right I mean I don't know if someone else wants to try to explain it but there was a you know a goal of trying to keep the the impact to to correct me if I'm Go ahead. >> I understand what you're saying. It's a to to mitigate the impact of the debt
exclusion that earned the support of town voters. This was part of the discussion, >> but I don't think I think what we've said multiple years now is was was the intention the first year, the second year, how long were we going to maintain the
um reduction of impact for the entirety of the debt? >> Yeah. That was the promise. >> As long as as long as we had sufficient cash. >> Well, yeah. I mean, we made a promise. >> Vote vote for the school. It's not going to cost you more than the average
homeowner more than 300 $350. >> So, >> and so what is our status with free cash? Uh, right. That's the >> relevant question here, right? >> That's that keeps us within within our financial guidelines. I can um recap the
free cash position for everyone compared to the policies. Our policy is to maintain 3 to 5% of free cash um compared to our budget. So this year we came in at 4.4% which means we have u 1,70,000
to appropriate throughout the fiscal year for the various purposes that um may come before a town meeting to do so. So that would be within policy the maximum that could be used between you know considering reducing the tax rate
voting for um you know any increases to the budget that come after we set the tax rate and you know first year collective bargaining. Historically we've sometimes used free cash to fund >> um all those different things. So that's the context that we're we're in as far
as you know available resources >> and you what we just heard is that tax rates are going to be going up significantly right >> 10 and a half% record high >> and our traditional amount that we've
been contributing in this way has been somewhere between 850,000 and 1.2 2 million I believe. >> So I would just like to make a distinction. The tax rate is not going to be record high. The tax bill >> the tax bill >> I think it's an important distinction because the community has made a
concerted effort over more than a decade to make sure the tax rate has lowered. >> So I just I that's just a distinction I wanted to make. >> We've made an effort to make sure the tax bill >> there. I'm just saying there's a distinction and something needs to be
distinguished between the rate and the bill that I wanted to highlight. >> Yes, that that's true. The rate itself is also going up quite a bit almost 10% too. >> Yeah, but Doug to to uh sorry it's late. Um you were saying 850k
to 1.1 million is what we've traditionally spent in the past to smooth that um hit to the average tax bill, but with the CBAs and the other things sort of lingering out there. I don't >> we really don't have that much.
>> I don't think we have that much quite frankly. So we have to be uh maybe >> we have to be thoughtful. >> Maybe have >> is all. Is there information that we could provide between now and or provide to you that evening so that you could have a number?
>> I just want to make sure that you guys are making >> if there's any headway that we make with any collective bargaining agreements, I think that would be pertinent, right? >> If I'm just saying hopeful wishful thinking >> between now and December 1st. >> Yeah, >> wishful thinking.
>> We've also put money away for CBA agreements, too. Um, >> so >> yeah, there's money in the salary reserve, but >> we have a salary reserve. The the contract is subject to the negotiation and it may or may not fall within the
reserve that we currently that is we're not at a settled position to be able to >> say finally that the salary reserves will cover it. >> Yep. >> Okay. Is there >> I don't see how we can I don't see how
we can >> I don't see how we can put anything towards it but >> towards what? Sorry, be specific. >> I don't see how we can put any money towards it. >> Down of reducing the tax, >> right? What we're talking about. >> Okay. Sorry. >> But we were
>> there's too many unknowns. If >> can we Okay, >> there's a way. I I don't I just don't know how to figure it out. Doug, what were you gonna say? >> Uh, well, I guess what I was going to
say is I'm surprised to hear Marielle say that, but um uh so um but uh beyond that, uh I don't really maybe I maybe I missed the meeting or something, but um I don't see how we can not put money
towards it in this environment. >> Okay, I'm good with that. I' I'd like to have I'd like Fincom the opine. >> There you go. >> Yeah. >> Prior to >> and I'm really good with that. >> Okay. So, they're meeting tomorrow. >> Great.
>> Patrick and I are both there. In addition to that, are there items or pieces of information that you would like us to try to prepare for you in addition to whatever their opinion is um to bring to you on December 1st? >> I think it's got to be what is it going to look like? We have to have a scale
of, you know, if we put 600,000 towards it, 800,000 towards it. Okay. Y >> million towards it. What is it? What does it actually look like? What's the impact going to be on free cash? I think you should also draw out what free cash is going to possibly look like >> over the next three years. What your projections are looking like.
>> Okay, that gets a little tricky, but I will see what I can do. >> That I will caution is way more art than science. >> Can we Can we do Can we one year? Well, >> at least we have $400,000 coming to us, right? >> Yes. >> That's sort of a joke, Patrick.
Well, and I think the other the other piece is, you know, um I know some of this is sensitive, but like what is the the pretty well-known other needs for free cash >> this year?
>> Yeah. In in the Yes. In the near term with the the million that we >> now see million4, if you count the 400,000, what are the We can't >> can't count it until 71. >> I think I think Patrick said you can't count it until fiscal year 20. >> We don't have access to it.
>> We don't have access to it. So, we can't spend it. >> No. >> Right. I think if we were going to itemize a list of things we need this year, that would be, you know, the things on this warrant alone, articles four and five, if they pass, that's $121,000 from free cash.
And collective bargaining is a big question mark. Nothing is settled right now. we could, you know, prognosticate on that. Um, maybe come back with something and yeah, it's really hard to predict, you
know, what what needs would pop up, but I guess those are our knowns right now. >> And Doug, maybe it would be useful for us to just look back at the things that were truly unanticipated so that we can give you some sense of that. >> Um,
you know, just a quick historic look back. Okay. All right. So, I think we are moving on. >> Set that aside and we'll >> please >> come back with income. Okay. That was seven. >> Eight is um the project at uh the
library for the side entrance. Uh Jonathan heard today that we will not have an answer until December 5th. He is well aware and it has been well communicated that this is a project that will only move forward if that grant is awarded. Otherwise, it will stay in the
pile along with all the other capital requests that we have. >> Okay. >> Um and just again by way of background so everyone's on the same page. The the only reason we're coming with this is because that the opportunity for that money plus it would be a a single mobilization um very likely when come
springtime when construction starts back up in the front entrance to be able to do it all together at a >> the most economical way possible. I'll say y >> I won't promise that it's cheaper but the most economical way that we can. >> So with that caveat I' I' I'd make a motion to support our flight second.
Um, Doug, >> you're muted. >> You give us a thumbs Oh, you have to say the word. Sorry. We don't want to get in trouble. >> Um, Mary Ellen, >> I just have a quick question. Does this have to say does this say in here? Does Does the language have to say
>> says in the comment the grant has not yet been uh, >> but does the article itself have to say that? I can ask that tomorrow if you all would like to wait on this one as well because we'll be with town council and the >> if we pass this this this goes through it doesn't I mean doesn't it has to go
through what the article says >> if you could find that out >> for tomorrow >> okay >> is the sense of the board that I'm just trying to plan for time on the first now this is one that assuming we word it and everything's on board yeah
>> we can move through quickly whereas there might be some discussion on other topics. I just want to we all said enough time. >> Is that fair to say? >> Yeah, >> Doug generally supportive if so long as it reflects what we just discussed. >> I'm sorry I didn't catch the last part you said.
>> I said uh we're just taking a straw poll to to let Nick know we're generally supportive of the article bearing in mind that there may be a amendment >> finalize the language. finalizing the language to make sure that it's it states exactly that it is only going forward if the grant opportunity is
awarded. >> Correct. >> Okay. Because we won't know before town meeting. >> Okay. Yep. Thank you. >> All right. The park grant for Abbott Park >> Park grant. It it's a we already received this grant. This is the town
match. This is a project that I believe is in its final phase, right, >> of a multi-phase effort. Um >> motion to approve article nine. >> Second >> payable action. Um >> I Mary Ellen's an I. Doug.
>> Hi. >> Daniels an I. >> Yeah. >> I David >> I >> I am an I. Okay. 50. >> Okay. Great. Moving on to 10 then the last one. Article 10 as drafted just for everyone's understanding was with the
idea that there may be personal property that we were trying to come to some agreement uh with the tenant that's vacating that they have completed their auction so that is not no longer an issue. Um, so you know, it it is slightly more expansive than it had been
in the past. And I know that's something that >> Yeah, I mean, we all got an email this morning from um, prior select member Neil Duffy who had questioned, you know, why the language was what it was. The the reasoning being obviously we were making space for that personal property
sort of question mark, but now we have an answer. So maybe we can alter the language back to the original, >> right? authorization. This is one I've already talked to Tom Mcini about to finalize again tomorrow. I also I called Neil to ask to make sure that what >> I was anticipating working through
tomorrow matches. I think the there were two concerns. One, it was sort of more expansive. Um but also the language here s I think it says any use um and the any use was intended to give us the latitude to be able to do the personal property
>> property. Yeah. So one of the things that um was suggested in the course of that conversation was to go back to the language before which was I believe restaurant hospitality or restaurant it's basically matching the restaurant language that was used previously in authorizations was the the thrust of
what that email was. >> So so can I mean can we also talk about the like the the duration like the the period shall not extend beyond December 31 of 28. You know, the original intent when we purchased the Hawthorne was to
really keep, you know, a tight leash on the select board, uh, the town from, you know, from really from really going, you know, and doing things, you know, uh, in a d in a in a manner that's that that
was just more long-term than what was than what the what the original intent was. So, I mean, I kind of like how we had done this in 22 where we said, "All right, we'll do this through the end of 23 and then we extended throughout
always seeking town meeting approval." I I'm just I just have concerns and you know, Brian Watson um you know, spoke to those earlier, so I don't need to really go into those uh in great detail, but you know, I really think that the the
lease should be much much shorter. um on this just just me. This is >> David. I'm not sure if you were part of the conversation that we had about this. That might have been the meeting that you weren't here recently. Um but we had
an extended conversation about this and it was it there's a lot of uncertainty, right? And we want to make sure that if someone's going to come in temporarily that they feel like they have enough time. You know, we have I think the conversation started at 18 months and then it went to two years and it went to
three years and it was always up to um you know, this is this is the warrant language to give us the flexibility. Doesn't mean we necessarily will enter into a lease that's 3 years, but at least we have the authorization to do it. That may still not satisfy what
you're concerned about, but that was that was the thinking. If it's if someone's going to come in and do something quote temporarily, how much time do they need to make it worth it? >> Yeah. I mean, and I'm and and just from a financial and a feasibility perspective and from a banking
perspective, 3 years isn't isn't feasible. Five years likely isn't feasible. Um, you know, if you're talking a building of of this size with the deferred maintenance and capital requirements that is that that is that
would be necessary to to to bring in um you know, a restaurant tour of a of a certain level, uh you're going to you're talking a 10-year term. So, at a minimum, and what this does is this this
opens the this opens the door. Um and the power of inertia is is certainly uh is pretty powerful. You know, had the you know, had had Hawthorne said we're, you know, we want another year, I think this is a different conversation. But I I I think this I think this is going to
be resoundly defeated uh on the at at town meeting if it's if it's presented as such. Um so I I I don't want to have a I don't want to have a vacant building, but I don't also don't want to have something that is that is, you know, that is that has a three-year has
a three-year lease. I just I I think we need to think um outside of the box as to how we can uh how we can accomplish this. So Mr. Patios's idea for an RFI may be, you know, may be something that is that is that is interesting. >> Um, so we can solicit some some
opportunities, but I I would I would really make sure that we're that we're informing and taking this into uh into town meeting each step of the way is just my personal feeling. Yeah, I think even if you So I think if you play out
the timeline, I also am intrigued by the idea of an RFI, but if an RFI turns into an RFP, you're talking about like six months before we're even getting a lease maybe going. So now, you know, you're talking about just over two years of
lease hold until you're up to that back stop anyways, right? So, I think that's why, you know, we're trying to figure out what that sweet spot is that gets us still moving forward with discussion and long-term strategy, not cutting off our
nose to spider's face from a respondence, right, proposition, but then also not giving too long of a leash so that town meeting like it it's almost near impossible to figure out what that sweet spot is. Um, so I hear what you're saying, but I just think if we are going
to RFI or RFQ and then turning into RFP, like the timing of that is really more like six to nine months before that building is occupied again. And so then you're looking at a basically a 2-year lease. >> No, I I I certainly hear you. And you know, just it's it's my concern that the
town is going to continue, you know, when when we when this was when this was contemplated for a special meeting special town meeting vote in June of 22. You know, really it was all right, the restaurant's going to continue to operate until it until it doesn't operate, at which point the town would
then demolish the property because of the costs of ensuring uh the property and to to really make sure that there were not there there were not going to be any uh any capital uh expenditures that the town was going to have to take on. you know, if if we're going to RFP
this out through the end of December 31 of 28, it's very likely that the town is responsible for any of the systems that break in this in this building, not to mention >> No. >> Um, not to mention insurance. What do you mean? No, >> we can we can write an RFP and just say
that we you know, >> I mean, it won't take >> I can write an RFP and wish for a million dollars, too, but just the likelihood of that happening is is it's just not realistic. Marielle and I mean we can we can want that to happen. So I but I think we need to look at you know
other uses that may not be restaurants that may be town uses but again we're still going to have these we're still going to have the same issues with insurance. We're still going to have the same issues with with capital expenditures and things that are going to pop up on a on a building that has
consider considerable deferred maintenance. >> Well that's my concern. Go ahead, Doug. >> Well, I was just trying to kind of, you know, think about the kind of logic um here, like, you know, David, I you
know, I you know, trust your sense of, you know, what the commercial real estate market is and and if if it's very unlikely that someone's going to, you know, uh be involved in this, I mean, we we you know, we did have someone earlier
tonight who seemed really interested. I don't know. But um >> he's not a commercial real estate guy. >> Okay. Okay. All right. I don't I don't sound like he was a restaurant tour. I don't know. But um so I guess I guess we'll see in a way,
right? I mean the idea is we don't want to extend this you know forever obviously um in terms of a temporary situation. we need to come to a you know a final conclusion about exactly how we want to proceed with the the Hawthorne
property uh general. Uh we have this kind of still in this interim state that none of us are excited about but I think we're getting there towards the final um conclusion. If we have this authority again, you know, we can test the market see whether
or not for whatever reason on what terms someone's interested in being there temporarily. If that doesn't work out, then we can you know the fallback will be to think about um you know more recreation space or you know whatever
it's going to be in the short run. Um and you know moving on maybe simultaneously you know we do need to take into consideration I do think you know what Charlie said is interesting um you know how we play that out in terms of uh different options
but I I do see this as kind of just increasing our optionality at the moment. um not going way too long, but at least giving it some chance of someone being interested in investing enough to make it worthwhile for, you know, a year or two. Um
>> we'll see. >> We'll see if anybody answers. >> Nick, when in the um capital budget is the de was the demolition slated? >> 27 or 28? >> 28. >> 28. >> 28. >> Okay. So then in theory if we're taking
what David said right and like the assumption is sort of like we thought the Hawthorne maybe might stay till 27 maybe early 28 and we would demolish in 28. That's why I mean I know it it was like a hope or a gueststimate but we're
it seems like we're not that far off by extending. If the Hawthorne had stayed yes we would have been in a different situation. We probably would be going year to year. It's a different >> we're continuing the same what we had anticipated with potentially just a different vendor, right? With a
different leasey, you know, so to speak, because if we if we thought Hawthorne was just going to stick around, to your point for another year and a half, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation, right? But because they decided to leave early, it doesn't behoove us to sit there and look at an empty building for a year and a half,
right? Why wouldn't we even give it a shot and see who is interested? Maybe nobody is, but we're not going to know that until we try, >> right? >> We can't just assume that no decent respondents will happen. Like, you know, that to me is just doing a disservice,
right? We're we're saying absolutely not. Nobody's out there, even though, you know, Mike Keller came up and said whatever. And God knows how many people have contacted each one of us saying, "Oh, I've got an idea for it. I've got an idea for it." You know, so do we not do we not give that its due?
>> Do we not give it a chance? >> No. Understood. And and everyone that I have talked to in fairness, everyone has has said this is an incredible space. I would, you know, I would give my left arm to uh to do something in this space. But you know when the emotional part of
your brain >> turns off and the logical part of your brain kicks up on um you know you it does come down to finances and >> you know so again that's that's the that's the caveat with which I w with which I leave
>> uh I I just want to have that that discussion because if if that if that was unsaid um and I did not have the chance to participate in that conversation last meeting um I do want to convey that um at at this meeting. So that's that's it.
>> So would you feel better if the wording was two years? >> I'd feel I'd feel better I'd feel better with a shorter duration. Marielle. Yes. >> Right. So, um, my only worry is going I'm, you know, I could my only worry would be going less than
two years only because if I were were a vendor coming in, >> I would I would want to have, you know, a little bit more than a year just to get my get myself a little bit more grounded. And then that gives the select board time to vet out all the
possibilities, look at all the scenarios, finish negotiating with the dasis and have a better plan. >> I mean that's a whole another component to it. It's a major key to all of this >> the piece of it because that determines
the space that you are really trying to to plan for whether it's >> right and I it's like you know just because we put out something depending on what kind of response we get doesn't necessarily mean we have if they're horrible proposals and whatnot it doesn't mean we have to do it but at
least we're figure it we're putting it out there to see what we're going to get you know I mean it's the only way you're going to know other than that you're going to sit there and look at an empty building and people in this town are already banging at the door of what are we doing with this property? It has been
sitting there and we have done nothing, right? And we have given no clue as to what we're going to do. And I think there's a real, you know, appetite of people are sick and tired of it and figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> I think to be a little bit fair to Brian and his team, there's definitely been
stuff done. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I know that's not how you meant it, >> but but we have what has now moved forward in a plan. We have been part of in the planning stage and we need to move towards the execution >> but metaphorically you know we've been planning right planning but nothing has
happened for people to visibly see any different than what has existed in the past. >> Yeah. >> Right. From when you made that vote in 2022 to buy it. >> Yeah. >> Right. Nothing has visibly changed other than you know philosophical thinking or or us planning or you know conceptualizing.
>> That's that's the reality. Right. David, would you do would you like to amend to a two-year term? Would you be supportive voting in favor of a two-year term? >> I I would. Yeah. >> Okay. I think in the in the
uh to to reach uh 50 vote, I think that is more important to me to show that the board is, you know, altogether in support of temporary use like we've already had. Um, so whether it's two years or three years, like while while three years I think is better for an RFP
respondent, if that is what gets us to the point of showing that we are in unification over this idea going forward, I think that's most important. So >> could I ask a question before you vote on anything? >> Yes, please. So again, this is something we're going to talk about tomorrow to
refine the language to narrow the the time, but also do we want to limit to I one of you had mentioned >> whether or not limiting a restaurant was appropriate and that that was the idea was we're going to match the language that had been used in the original
authorization. >> The originalation was like hospitality restaurant. >> I don't think we should limit it, right? You think we should leave it unlimited but make it two years? >> Yes. >> Well, my worry is >> uh if I'm a town meeting member, I don't
I don't want to see housing in there. >> I don't want to see >> Okay. >> You're not you're not going to be able to use that >> revenue producing. Could you say something along those lines, >> right? I mean, >> rewrite we're like >> legal revenue producing. I don't know. Right. >> I mean, I don't I don't think realistically you can have temp you can
have temporary. I just >> could you somehow modify it that it >> specifies industry right or a certain industry >> I don't know >> might be something you can leave to the floor of town meeting for people I
>> no no no >> that I >> let's have direction from us at least >> there for three nights >> you all agreed very quickly which is great um but I you know going if we don't limit it then It's is it retail
and retail what use? Like I just think that's the type of follow-up question that you would get from the floor is >> what if it's not going to be limited to a restaurant and that's a use that everyone has been comfortable with and comfortable with the town as the quote unquote landlord of it. >> It's not limited prior actually. Okay.
>> Here's article 13 and it says um >> the continued use >> for such purpose as the select board shall determine and on such terms and conditions the select board shall deem appropriate. Okay. >> And to authorize the select board to enter all agreements and to take any action that may be necessary or convenient to accomplish the foregoing
purposes or take any action related there too. So it was broad prior. So I suggest we leave it. >> It's fine. >> Okay. >> We just limit it to limiting to December December 31 instead of 28. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. I I'll just I'll just say I think consistent with what Katie was
saying like I I I personally don't think two years is the right I don't think it's long enough. Um I I understand the concerns about that, but um I I I'll vote for it. Uh that's what we're going to, you know, go towards
have it be unanimous. But um I'd rather have the warrant article give us three years. We can decide differently what we want to do in terms of the RFP. Um but you know once we're locked in with two years and someone says, "Oh, that's not
enough." Now we're stuck. >> Yeah. >> Um so I just want to be I want I mean theoretically, you know, if we were that stuck, we could have another special town meeting to like extend it on specific terms, but um that is the potential downside of that.
>> Well, the the the prior article was extending the use. It really didn't give. >> So the use and speaking to KP, the use was the restaurant and it was a withheld right of
the Athenas family in the deal. >> Okay. >> To continue the use as a restaurant, which was why it was slightly different than doing an RFP that goes through a normal 30B >> um procurement process. So that was what they were talking about. The difference was the other the flip side the not the
flip side the other alternative is a license but it's replicable on both sides which is not it's even harder from a banking or commercial standpoint to say after 30 days or 60 days the town could just be like no we appreciate everything you did but it's time to leave.
>> Yeah. >> Or that they could do that to us. So >> the the use was as a restaurant. I think that's where I may be >> not representing it as cleanly as clearly as possible to you all. Like it was a restaurant, it continued as a restaurant, so it wasn't going to be
Petco, you know, like >> Yep. >> Um it was that I think that's when when we talk about limiting the use that that's more what I'm we also don't we also can just table this for this evening and take a and and and pick this up at our at our next meeting so we can
have some more information. We can all think about this a little more too. Yeah. The only thing I worry I don't disagree with you, but I the only thing I worry about is how much time we have at that next meeting. So, just being thoughtful of that because we're going to set the tax rate. We're going to answer all the articles we haven't answered tonight and we're going to have
a lengthy discussion about this article potentially. >> You know, our goal is not to have a extended short-term situation. Our goal is to get this wrapped up as quickly as possible, but also to be reasonable bringing somebody in bringing somebody
in there. So, >> and avoiding an avoiding an empty building for >> that's our major. That's the main goal. That's the main goal. And we're looking to see if there's some revenue that we can generate, right? Let's not lose sight of what we have been listened to
all night, right? >> $2.3 million deficit. Like, >> yeah, we all have >> ideas of what we'd love this to be, but let's >> let's talk about the reality we're in. Right. Right. That's the goal of what we're trying to accomplish. Even in the short term,
>> we're about to have the largest tax hike in a very long time. We are looking at serious times and you know, we're doing the best we can here. >> Brian, can you make it in under 30 minutes? >> Oh, no.
>> Yes. Very quickly, please. >> Yeah. I mean, this Do I need the mic? >> Yeah. Yep. Th >> this is a this is a super tough problem and it's a super important question. So there's a there's a lot of moving parts. So to so what what I think is helpful
for for everybody is is to is to take each moving part one at a time and and then because I understand the sort of difficulty of where the select board is. It's you got to take them one at a time so you can have clarity on each part. For example, just for forget the other
parts for the moment and just say uh the concern the concern is revenue. I just heard people dislike say the concern is revenue. So will it cost the town more to let the building just be empty for 6 months, four months or six months? one
just compare it's empty for four or six months or how much money will the town need to actually extend to this temporary oper this temporary operator I mean somebody who's coming in
for two years or three years can't spend a whole lot of money upgrading the restaurant I mean just strictly revenue here >> that's the reality so I mean think about it what what restaurant guy is going to come in and do all that's involved to
put a 22,000 square foot building in shape. The second floor is not accessible by elevator. I I it it feels not connected to the to the way restaurant people will work. I mean, somebody can't come in and put $2
million into the building. You're going to say, "Here's a two-year lease and and you think anybody anybody is going to put 2 million in?" >> Nobody's nobody. >> No, but okay. But revenue will the town will be >> oral. >> Okay. So, let me make it clear.
>> The town would you let let me just speak for a minute. What are you afraid of? It's going to come up at town meeting >> after it's after 10:00. >> You can hear it now or you can hear it at town meeting. I mean, >> you don't you don't have to raise voices. We can stand and participate. >> Please. >> It's it it needs a calm discussion,
right? So, >> well, that's what I said. >> So, think so. What are the economics of having some temporary person come in and set up a restaurant for whe whether it's two years or three years, it doesn't even matter whether it's two years or three. What sort of money can that
person spend to get that restaurant in business? That person will have to spend money for plates. I mean, for everything to to to I've been in the building, there's a lot of rehab. So, that person has to spend x amount of dollars. So, how much more can he give the town? He's
He can't pay property taxes. He can't pay a big rent. >> But you don't know that, Brian. You don't know any of because you don't even know who it would be. You have no idea. >> I You're making assumptions and we can't do that. We can't afford to do that. >> What I know is talk to restaurant people
and ask them if it's realistic. Is there any restaurant operator that'll come into a 22,000 square foot building and start a restaurant >> and knowing he's leaving in two years? Just ask restaurant people. They'll take my word for it. >> I think the RFT will ask the exact the
market, right? Like like that is the purpose of an whether we go out Hold on one second. I'm sorry. One second. Whether you go out for RFP regarding >> K1 or G1 and ask that question or we go out ask and ask our question, you're still giving space to let the market
give the answer. Right? That is the purpose of an RFP. So where we said going back not to go too far back but to say your your RFP supposition requires residential to work really >> put mine aside aside.
>> Brian just let me finish please. You're saying ours is a fool errand because it requires a $2 million investment >> by the town. By the town. >> Okay. >> Let's let's not go down this path. I I
>> fine. Let's if I can focus on the article. >> The other thing the other thing I want to say Doug Doug the other issue is the select board is paralyzed and it's evident to the town and will be evident at town meeting that the select board is paralyzed from making its decision because it's pursuing the possible
acquisition of another lot and until and until this paral article okay okay please Brian let it let's stick to commentary on article 10. I I'd like to make the motion approve article 10. >> Now, this relates to article 10. You're trying to decide what to do.
>> There is a motion on the floor. The motion has been seconded. >> So, is it is the article as it stands? >> As it stands. I make a motion to approve article 10 as it stands. >> Correct. >> Is there second? >> It's my second.
>> Okay, Doug. >> Um, >> you know, hold on because we could also we can discuss it. We we >> yeah okay we yeah >> we could we could also >> wait and vote on the all we're talking about is >> two or three that's all we're that's all
we're talking about and if we want to think about a little bit more we could make this decision um on the first >> this is just giving us the flexibility >> right >> to exercise that right and that is the key we're not we're not this motion I just made is not saying let's vote to
have a three-year lease of this piece of this parcel this gives us the flexibility to extend up to three years, right? It could end up being two. It could end up being two and a half. It could end up being nothing if we get zero response or zero response that would be valuable and revenue producing
to this town, right? But we are never going to know that until we take a step and to Brian's point, not be paralyzed by this any longer. We need to act. It is on this board to do that. Right? We're in these seats for a reason and the time has come for us to actually do
something. That's my feeling. So, the only quibble I have with that, of course, is that I would much prefer it to be 5-0 as well. >> I agree with you. So, I agree. >> And so, and so I could Could we could we haggle to two and a half, David? >> Two and a half.
>> So, we're haggling to go to June of 20 June 30 of 28. >> We could even do two years from the date of the acceptance of the RFP, right? or the award of the awarding of >> be more comfortable with knowing what date
you know if that makes >> I thought about that also because I was like well the lease could be for two years from the date of the acceptance but it is more clear to town meeting to work in definite >> and if we're trying to do and if we're trying to make sure a building is heated it makes it makes sense for the term to end in the summer rather than in
>> right before the beginning of the fiscal year right >> end at the end of the fiscal year >> yeah that's really >> keeping keeping the pressure keeping the pressure on us to get this done. >> June 30th of 28. Okay. So that is the friendly amendment. >> Yes, >> you
>> I I will adjust or I will second that friendly amendment by Doug whichever. >> Okay. So Doug made a friendly amendment. >> Second. >> Okay. So now we are voting on the article with a June 30th, 2028 date. >> I >> I >> Daniel
>> I >> David >> I I am still I I am still not 100% comfortable. I will asterisk my vote. Um, it's better than December 31 of 28, but uh I will uh I I think it's important that we're that we're a united. >> So, you're an I with an asterisk.
>> I'm an I with an asterisk. >> Okay. I'm an I. Okay. Well, the asterisk will not appear in the warrant. David >> noted on the poweroint. >> Sure. Okay. >> Noted. >> Um All right. So,
that ends that. Let's move on to the consent agenda discuss. Uh the consent agenda is a one-day liquor license for the senior center. Here come the holidays wine tasting and uh meeting minutes from 11:5
to 11 and 11:10. >> Motion to approve consent agenda. >> Second. >> Doug. >> I. >> Marielen >> I. >> Danielle >> I. >> David >> I. And I I Okay, moving on to select board time. Anybody would anybody like
>> I just add one thing. >> You may, Nick. >> The folks that put together the Veterans Day event that I failed to mention when I mentioned the breakfast and not the event that happened after >> Yeah. >> It was a fantastic event. I just >> Yeah. at at on the money
>> at Monument. Like I forgot to Mike, the team, our guests. It was a fantastic event. I don't know why I stopped at breakfast and I just wanted to make sure that I thank them for the the event that followed as well as as well as the collation afterwards. Yes, >> sorry to interrupt. >> That's okay. You're not interrupting.
All right. Does anybody have any additional comments? >> I do. I just uh once again I want to thank Nate Bishim and Nathan Kent for bringing us uh our meeting tonight. I also want to thank the DPW for hanging up the banners in the rain the day
before. Um, I want to bring everybody up to date. Solid Waste Committee uh is working hard at um making sure we had a successful pumpkin toss because a lot of pumpkins were taken out of our waist stream. Um and uh Stephanie Newman
actually was able to get a farm to take it for free, saving us over $500 from the year before. So what's one thing that's really important from solid waste is the um the urgency of working together with the RFP and getting an RFP
ready for you know one of the largest expenses we have in in our account. The council on not the council but um the Swam for all ages is finishing up their AARP um audit that they had to do. They were
almost finished with that. They also at their last meeting they they talked about some issues that they have with not having benches at bus stops. Bus stops are not regulated by the town. They're regulated by um mass transportation. So, we've got to reach out to Jenny Armeni to try to help get
some something in there. Um we still have an issue with the retirement on the is uh the issue on the coding, but already you already have that information. Um I just want to also recognize that we have uh Bill Dandreal was recognized by the um he was
honored by the Lynn uh Veterans Council. Um Mr. Dandreal is a gentleman who does enormous amount of work for veterans and he is he he does not release press releases. He does the work and he's he's
an amazing man and he was on the cover of the Lyn item yesterday which is was pretty exciting. So um and then in closing I would like to have to this added to this agenda the s the um water and sewer commission. I feel very
strongly that Andrea Moore and um Mr. There is another gentleman I can't read my handwriting here that was put up for a nomination. I I would like to get some something going on this. This is I I'm uncomfortable with what's happening that
people aren't being put on this committee and I' I'd like it on our next agenda. Not the agenda prior to town meeting, but the third and >> that's all I have for tonight. >> Doug, you had something?
>> I do. Um couple things. One, um just a little CPA update. uh CPA committee is being um uh seated uh December 12th, December 10th. Um again, thanks hugely to Diane and um uh the coalition will be
supporting it, the statewide coalition, etc. Um, and uh, the other thing is I um, not sure if it was distributed to everyone, but Kleinfelder's work on the coastline uh, is moving along and I think they're
probably in like um, close to final draft. Uh, some very very uh, interesting uh, thought-provoking uh, etc. ideas. And uh so I don't know if Marzy's in the room. Um but >> on vacation. >> She's on vacation.
>> She's on vacation. Doug. >> Yeah. Uh so we should um Nick, if you can uh make sure that we've you know got that um raised up uh for presentation here as soon as appropriate.
>> We'll do. >> We'll do. >> That is very loud. >> That's terrible. Danielle David. >> Uh, no. I just want to thank Wayne Spritz for the um pumpkin toss. I tossed a lot of pumpkins myself that day and uh
it was great. There were a lot of people there. It was really well done. >> Did you break that that you the one that broke the >> I didn't break it? No. But, you know, I'm not very good with my aim. I'm not an athlete, but I did I I I'll train for next year to see if I can do better. But
thank you to Wayne because he really did make it fun for the kids and really put a lot of time in. It was a It was a big accomplishment. And I just I'm really proud of this board tonight for coming together and making the right call um on this Hawth Hawthorne thing. It is it is a big issue in town. It's important to a
lot of people and I mean I have noticed the past two weeks that parking lot was full, that restaurant was full and it means a lot to a lot of people. I don't think it's quite that easy for us to just say tear it down and start a new. So I think that we're being thoughtful and that's what we're here to do. So
proud of us all for that. That's it, >> David. >> No, I just >> vacation pictures. >> What's that? >> A vacation pictures? >> No, not today. Not tonight. I'll share those uh at another time. So, thanks. >> Um,
two things really quick. If you didn't toss your pumpkins because you keep them through Thanksgiving, you can recycle them through the black, >> what is it? Black earth composting at the behind the cemetery or at the police station. So, um, don't put them in your
trash, please. Um, >> stinky. >> Uh, and then I was let I was informed today that the governor signed S23, which is an act authorizing the appointment of our alternate members to the conservation commission, which was something that we were waiting um, we've
passed uh, through town meeting and we were waiting for confirmation from the governor of. So, um, they'll mobilize to make sure that we now have um, alternates and they have been informed. So, thank you Jenny Martin Armeni's team for keeping us in the loop. And that's all I have.
>> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> I I move >> I >> David >> I'm also an I. Thank you everyone.