[0:05] Okay, welcome to the Tuesday, September 8th select board meeting. If we would uh

[0:09] we're being recorded. If we rise for the pledge.

[0:15] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the

[0:20] republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[0:25] justice for all.

[0:29] Thank you. We'll begin this evening with the town administrators report.

[0:34] » Good evening. Thank you. Uh I pretty brief tonight since I think that we were

[0:39] together five or six business days ago the last time. So uh first I wanted to

[0:44] give an update on the MSBA statement of interest that we submitted along with

[0:48] the school committee last year or last fiscal year in the spring. Uh we had a

[0:53] visit with the MSBA staff last week. Uh which means we had made the first cut

[0:58] for the statement of interest. Um it was a very informative discussion. We had a

[1:03] sort of sitdown session around the table and then walked around middle school

[1:06] answering questions. We have a couple of follow-ups that we're putting together

[1:09] for them. Um but we're excited that we had made this initial cut and we're

[1:13] we're having the staff level review. They will make recommendations to the

[1:16] MSBA board uh in early December. So we're looking forward to hearing more

[1:20] about that. Uh second second piece of news I wanted to share and I think some

[1:24] folks have already seen this. Uh EOHLC uh announced last Thursday funding for a

[1:29] number of affordable housing projects across the state and thankfully uh we

[1:34] were able to celebrate along with BBH that the funding for the project um at

[1:38] Veterans Crossing was approved. It's an important first step uh in moving

[1:42] forward with the state. We're excited for the milestone, but there's plenty of

[1:45] work ahead. So we'll continue to share updates as they're warranted. Um, third,

[1:51] probably the only news news I'm sharing with it with folks is uh in working with

[1:54] the recck department, we are going to be building off the success of the World

[1:59] Cup on the town lawn uh town hall lawn by piloting a limited number of Patriots

[2:05] games this fall. Uh we were able to work out the licensing over the last few

[2:09] weeks. We're working on the scheduling right now. It will not be every game. um

[2:13] probably you know two three or four this year if that just to see if it's an idea

[2:17] that will work see how cold it is see how everyone reacts to it but um it was

[2:21] such a big success with the World Cup games that we wanted to see if this is

[2:24] something we could explore and thank you to Charlotte and Christina for running

[2:27] down the licensing on that so that's exciting there'll be more news on that

[2:31] as the details are finalized um and finally just want to share a reminder

[2:36] that the 911 remembrance ceremony will be held on Friday uh starting promptly

[2:41] at 9:55 at the fire headquarters. If anyone's available to attend, we would

[2:44] love to have you join us. Um, and that program will run about 45 minutes. And

[2:49] with that, I'm happy to take any questions you all may have.

[2:53] » Thank you, Nick. >> So, the

[2:56] Can you hear me? >> Just speak loud.

[2:59] » Okay. Um, does the MSBA um MSBA discussion that you're having was that

[3:06] if I remember correctly from earlier this year that was to be inclusive of

[3:09] both a uh rehab as well as a reconstruct. Correct. Just want to make

[3:14] sure that's still >> part of

[3:17] » Yeah, it's renovation or rebuild. That's something that they we would work with

[3:21] any designer if we were to move forward um to figure out what the best option

[3:25] is. But we looked at it from sort of both angles as part of the discussion as

[3:29] a statement of interest indicated we'd be open to either with the location

[3:33] staying the same. >> Okay.

[3:36] » Anyone else? >> Could you just remind us what the

[3:40] in a perfect world which obviously never happens. Timeline is for when a when you

[3:45] do these walkthroughs with MSBA if we are accepted under every you know round

[3:50] here. >> Yep.

[3:50] » What that timeline is because I know it's rather extensive.

[3:53] » Six to seven years most likely. >> Yeah. It's five to seven, but not many

[3:58] projects are right done in five. So, it's really a six to seven year.

[4:01] » And that's for financing to come through before construction.

[4:04] » That's the whole that's the whole thing. Yeah.

[4:07] » And there's a number of steps throughout where you know, we would have money for

[4:12] the feasibility study and design um you know,

[4:16] » in advance of the next step. And then we get, you know, there sort of, the way we

[4:20] described it last spring was um there's a number of on-ramps and off-ramps

[4:24] throughout the process where we ask the community to take a really active role

[4:28] whether in voting or in weighing in on different steps in the process.

[4:32] » Got it. Thank you.

[4:35] » Um I have a question on the veterans housing. Mhm.

[4:38] » So now that we've we're in the first round and um Kim Martin Epipstein

[4:44] actually commented on it that it's very rare to be able to get that much funding

[4:48] and support in the first round which says a lot about our community and about

[4:51] the project. I think that we need to work as quickly as possible to start

[4:56] identifying our process on how we're going to help the community. And um I'm

[5:02] going to give you a call and talk about a couple ways and I think where there is

[5:05] some extra money in case we need money to send out mailers and flyers or things

[5:09] like that. I know that the town um we give $2,000 a month over to the VFW

[5:14] right now to support veterans and I think that'd be a good way going forward

[5:18] to use that money to help get the word out to market it and identify it and

[5:23] » as we move to towards occupancy. >> Yeah. Okay. Yep. So, and then also, you

[5:28] know, getting a process in which we put together a committee that's going to

[5:31] start, you know, working really hard on we have over 400 veterans in in town.

[5:36] So, you know, in town and then also in Lynn, people who have lived here or in

[5:41] Salem that have lived here that would still qualify. And I just want to make

[5:45] sure we get that ball rolling. And then the other thing I just want to comment

[5:49] on last week's meeting. Um when Patrick came, Patrick came and gave us the

[5:55] update on uh the shortfall on the overlay and on the um the fund the

[6:01] additional care funding. And I have to tell you, it really it bothered me. It

[6:06] It's bothered me quite a bit because for two reasons. One is we never heard a

[6:10] word about it, not one word until last week. And I just think that that's that

[6:15] we can never that can't happen. We have to the select board and the finance

[6:19] committee need to be given updates on what's going on. The fact that over

[6:25] $200,000 is not being covered by the federal government. And I know that

[6:29] there was a lot of comments that those are, you know, if we were to have

[6:34] a class action lawsuit, it would be a lot of legal fees. But I do want to look

[6:38] into that with other communities. And I do want to get, you know, Senator Marky

[6:42] to comment on how is it possible because during that whole process, we had our

[6:48] finance director and our town administrator was was constantly

[6:52] reporting back to us and working very hard to spend that money correctly and

[6:56] going over it over it and over it. And to now be told that it's not being

[7:00] covered by the federal government, I I just can't take that as, oh, okay, we'll

[7:05] we'll take it. I think one I would like to see the select board be sent all the

[7:09] information that was sent to us. Um what is it we didn't why is it they're saying

[7:14] we don't qualify. What were the rules? Because all we did was made sure that

[7:20] testing was available. And if they're saying, "Oh, we're not going to cover

[7:25] you for testing." I I really need to have a better understanding of why we're

[7:29] not being tested, why we why we're not being covered for testing. And then um

[7:34] on the overlay I the overlay I'll talk to Patrick so I can get a better

[7:40] understanding of the overlay but still the overlay seems a little odd to me

[7:44] that we had that much of an overlay when all the tax bills haven't been processed

[7:50] in the given year. So I just I want to get a better understanding of that. But

[7:54] the most important thing is I don't I don't want to get blindsided again last

[7:58] minute. So, if you could just put a note that if there's something outstanding on

[8:01] a balance sheet, let us know right away. >> We'll do.

[8:04] » Thank you. >> Sure.

[8:08] » Okay. We will move on to public comment. Uh public comment is three minutes and

[8:15] we are going to use this microphone here because there is no micro. Oh, we're

[8:19] going to move that microphone to the stand. Okay. Maybe you could just hand

[8:22] that microphone to Mr. Dementoto for now so that he doesn't have to make the

[8:25] journey. >> Oh, yeah. Thank you, Joe. Appreciate

[8:29] that. >> Does this come out?

[8:34] » Thank you.

[8:38] » Good evening, Bill Dementoto, 108 Paradise Road. I am here to

[8:47] celebrate the funding of the veterans project

[8:54] which is close to everyone who was concerned about

[8:59] affordable housing in the town of Swamskitt.

[9:03] This is the biggest project since 1971

[9:09] when Darity Circle was approved for housing.

[9:14] The biggest since then and it's only the biggest because it's

[9:19] the second other than the 38 unit Michon school. It is something to celebrate and

[9:25] I didn't didn't want to miss it. So much so that I know uh I heard just

[9:32] heard Mary Allen say there should be a committee to try to

[9:37] identify uh veterans who might be eligible. And I want this board to know

[9:42] that I am going to form an ad hoc veterans

[9:49] committee of five people to seek out with the veterans agent every veteran

[9:57] in this town to find out what their status is and to

[10:01] see if they are eligible. And I'm I'm thrilled that there's 41 units that for

[10:08] the first time I believe will actually be built.

[10:13] The naysayers will complain.

[10:18] They always do. But thanks to the three members of the board

[10:26] who were involved in the granting and the two new members and a new town

[10:33] administrator and a new town planner, I think this is going to happen. So,

[10:40] thank you. >> Thank you.

[10:44] Additional public comment.

[10:49] Okay, I have uh seeing none, I will move on to one that was emailed

[10:55] and this is from uh Mr. James Andrews uh 133 Stson Avenue. Uh there are some

[11:03] links he gives which will be incorporated into the minutes. So if

[11:06] you'd like to um see them, please check out our minutes for at the next meeting.

[11:11] Uh, dear select board, I'm unable to attend public comment this evening, but

[11:14] would appreciate the following be made part of the public record. On August

[11:18] 27th board meeting, at on the August 27th board meeting, Captain Cable

[11:23] presented a proposal that would change parking. During this presentation, he

[11:26] repeatedly repeatedly referenced the Wescot property and this was

[11:30] subsequently described by a board member as not being a transit property. Per

[11:34] mass housing financing minutes on 8823, the financing for this development was

[11:39] approved on the basis of a transit oriented development within walking

[11:42] distance.3 miles point sorry 0.3 miles of Swampscott MBTA commuter rail station

[11:48] as well as being served by the MBTA bus service alongside Essex Street. Uh the

[11:53] developer own study indicated that the initial proposal had a 75% shortfall in

[11:57] the number of required on-site parking spaces per Swampscott zoning

[12:00] regulations. According to the TIA, there are 109 parking spaces proposed for the

[12:06] 128 multif family housing units, which is calculated to be 0.85 parking spaces

[12:11] per unit. God bless you. A strict interpretation of the zoning

[12:14] requirements would require 192 spaces based on current zoning requirements

[12:19] provides the link. Considerable effort was made by the town and impacted

[12:23] residents and the developer in 21 and 22 to negotiate a reduction in the impact

[12:29] of this development. Concessions on both sides ended up with a parking agreement

[12:32] and a plan that outlined the following. Reduction from 120 to 114 units.

[12:36] Increased on-site parking from 109 to 130. Increased ratio parking became 1.08

[12:43] spaces per unit instead of 085 spaces per unit. Easement plan to connect

[12:48] Pitman to rail trail transit infrastructure. As a resident, I am

[12:52] concerned that after two years of opening, the town has already appeared

[12:55] to be backtracking on this agreement. Based on the swamp scout's own zoning

[12:59] requirements, the failure to maintain this agreement would lead to an

[13:02] additional 60 to 70 vehicles competing for parking on the over congested area

[13:06] of town. I'm also concerned that if town is incapable of managing the provisions

[13:11] under which uh I am also concerned that if the town is incapable of managing the

[13:16] provisions under which a controversial property such as the WCOT was permitted,

[13:20] then I question whether residents should trust anything the town says regarding

[13:23] other reszoning proposals or future developments. James Andrews. So his

[13:28] links will be um available in the minutes

[13:33] and we will move on to um the new and old business. Actually we

[13:41] I would like to consider given the time to just bump the consent agenda because

[13:45] we do have one individual who is on the consent agenda who's here, Kelly Russo.

[13:50] So, if it would be okay to take the consent agenda now so that we can allow

[13:55] Kelly to enjoy her evening without us if she so chooses.

[13:59] Um, so the consent agenda includes the minutes, the entertainment license for

[14:04] Pomona, Miss Russo, and um Kristen Lewis uh to climate action and resiliency. So,

[14:12] I will take a motion. >> Motion to approve.

[14:14] » Can I have a second? >> Second.

[14:15] » All in favor? >> Hold on. I have a discussion.

[14:17] » Oh, go ahead. So, I just I was going to pull the appointment of Kelly Russo only

[14:21] because I didn't really think that having the appointment of Kelly Russo

[14:26] should be just in a consent agenda. Um, and the reason I say that is I know

[14:30] Kelly Russo and she is an incredible hardworking volunteer for this community

[14:35] and we are so lucky to have you. So, I didn't think that you should just be in

[14:39] the consent agenda, but Sintella, you do have to get going. Um, I I think it's

[14:44] we're really lucky to have you. >> Thank you so much.

[14:47] Thank you. >> Thank you. All right. All in favor?

[14:52] » I I >> All right. So, we will now move on to

[14:55] new and old business. Thank you, Kelly, for joining us.

[14:57] » Thank you so much. >> And thank you for your time.

[15:00] » Thank you all for >> Thank you.

[15:04] » All right. We will move on to two proclamations this evening. Um September

[15:09] is National Suicide Prevention Month and the select board makes the

[15:16] following proclamation. Whereas September is recognized as National

[15:20] Suicide Prevention Month, a time dedicated to raising awareness of mental

[15:23] health resources and suicide prevention services available within our

[15:26] communities. This observation provides an opportunity to encourage conversation

[15:31] about mental health and the impact of suicide, reduce stigma, and the help to

[15:35] connect individuals and families with appropriate support and resources. And

[15:39] whereas suicide remains a significant public health concern that affects

[15:42] individuals of all ages and backgrounds, as well as their friends, families,

[15:46] co-workers, neighbors, and communities. And whereas the town of Swampscott

[15:49] recognizes that every life lost to suicide has a profound and lasting

[15:54] impact on family members, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and the greater

[15:58] community. And whereas the town of Swampscott proudly supports those who

[16:01] work each day in the fields of mental health, education, public safety, health

[16:06] care, and community service to provide prevention, intervention, treatment,

[16:10] education, and support to individuals and families. And whereas national and

[16:14] local mental health organizations and community partners serve on the front

[16:18] lines of suicide prevention and mental health advocacy, working to ensure that

[16:23] individuals know they are not alone and that help and support are available. And

[16:27] whereas stigma surrounding suicide and mental health challenges can prevent

[16:31] individuals from seeking the support they need, making open conversation,

[16:36] education, compassion, and awareness essential components of suicide

[16:39] prevention. And whereas we encourage all residents to take the time to understand

[16:44] the importance of mental health and suicide prevention, to recognize the

[16:48] signs that someone may need support, to reach out to those who may be

[16:51] struggling, and to remember that care for ourselves and one another includes

[16:55] caring for our mental health and emotional well-being. Now therefore, be

[16:59] it proclaimed on behalf be it proclaimed on behalf of the select board of the

[17:03] town of Swampscott, Massachusetts, that September 2026 is hereby proclaimed as

[17:08] in the town of Swampscott, Massachusetts. We inc uh National

[17:13] Suicide Prevention Month, and we encourage all residents to join in the

[17:16] important observation by promoting awareness, compassion, understanding,

[17:19] and support throughout our community. And witness hereof, we here unto set our

[17:23] hands and cause the cause to be affixed the great seal of the town of

[17:27] Swampscott, Massachusetts. this 8th day of September, 2026.

[17:32] Um to pause for a moment, just check in with folks, right? That's really what

[17:38] this is about. It's about bringing recognition to um suicide awareness and

[17:43] to being active members of our community, checking in with our

[17:47] neighbors, checking in with our friends, making sure people have a place to be

[17:50] heard um so that we can prevent this from happening to other friends and

[17:55] family members. We have a second proclamation

[18:01] which I'll read unless I have a volunteer.

[18:04] I'll read also give you a break if you want.

[18:07] » Will you? That would be great. Thank you so much.

[18:10] » Sure. All right. The National Senior Center

[18:13] Month proclamation by the Swampscott Select Board. Whereas since 2007,

[18:18] National Senior Center Month has been pro celebrated each September as

[18:21] recognized by the National Council on Aging and the National Institute of

[18:25] Senior Centers to celebrate senior centers across the country and the

[18:28] important work they do to enrich and enhance the lives of older adults. And

[18:32] whereas the Swampscott Senior Center is committed to fostering an inclusive and

[18:35] welcoming community for all people and recognizes and celebrates the diversity

[18:39] of our community. And whereas the town of Swampscot supports the rights of

[18:43] every citizen to experience equality, dignity, respect, and freedom from

[18:46] discrimination. And whereas the origins of National Senior Center Month can be

[18:51] traced to National Senior Center Week, first celebrated in May 1979 to

[18:56] recognize senior centers throughout the nation and the essential role they play

[19:00] in supporting old adults, older adults, and strengthening communities. And

[19:04] whereas in 1985, President Ronald Reagan issued the first presidential

[19:08] proclamation recognizing National Senior Center Week. And in 2007, the National

[19:14] Institute of Senior Centers expanded the OB observance to an entire month,

[19:19] designating each September as National Senior Center Month.

[19:23] And whereas since 2021, the town of Swampscott has continued to strengthen

[19:27] its commitment to older adults through dedicated leadership resources,

[19:32] programs, services, and opportunities that support healthy and active aging.

[19:37] And whereas the Swampscott Senior Center serves as an important community

[19:40] resource providing social, educational, recreational, and wellness programs, as

[19:45] well as nutritious meals, transportation services, and opportunities for

[19:49] connection and engagement. And whereas the town of Swampscott is proud of its

[19:55] growing senior community and recognizes that senior c uh senior centers play an

[20:00] essential role in supporting the overall health and well-being of older adults,

[20:04] particularly by reducing social isolation, encouraging meaningful

[20:07] connections, and creating opportunities for seniors to remain active and engaged

[20:11] in their community. And whereas Swampscott continues to envision

[20:15] opportunities to serve residents of all ages and generations while recognizing

[20:18] the important role older adults play in the strength, character, history, and

[20:23] future of our community. And now, therefore, be it proclaimed by virtue of

[20:27] the authority vested in the select board of the town of Swamscott, Massachusetts,

[20:31] that the month of September 2026 is hereby proclaimed as in the town of

[20:36] Swanscott, Massachusetts. And we encourage all residents, businesses,

[20:39] faith-based, and nonprofit institutions, community groups, and public

[20:43] institutions to acknowledge, honor, value, and celebrate the contributions

[20:47] of older adults to our community, and to recognize the dedicated individuals who

[20:52] serve and support them each day. In witness whereof, we have here unto set

[20:58] our hands and cause to be affixed the great seal of the town of Swampscott,

[21:01] Massachusetts, this 8th day of September, 2026.

[21:05] Thank you, Ted. Appreciate that. Appreciate all that the senior center

[21:11] continues to do for our aging population,

[21:14] especially our director ammeritus Heidi Weir and our

[21:20] current director. So, we will move on to it is not quite 7

[21:25] o'clock and that's what we posted. Can I still go on?

[21:29] » We have to wait. >> We have to wait. Okay. So, let's move on

[21:33] to what can we move on to for five minutes? Discussion of the

[21:37] charter commission. >> It's posted for 6:30.

[21:40] » It's It says 6:30 on here, but it was posted in the paper as 7.

[21:44] » So, I don't want to start it um until the publicly posted time.

[21:48] » So, that's why I'm waiting for IRA um to open. Can we move on to the charter

[21:54] conversation for five minutes or is it going to take longer than that?

[21:57] » I can just speak to it if that's okay. >> Please. instead of the slides for now.

[22:02] » Yes. And then we can go ahead. >> If we even need to do the slides, we can

[22:05] decide that later. >> Go ahead.

[22:06] » Um, so the the purpose of the review is that there had been a handful of um

[22:11] folks that expressed interest in looking at individual parts and pieces of the

[22:15] charter and trying to understand if the authorities

[22:18] um the roles, the appointments and structures, the budget and capital

[22:22] process, if everything that we last agreed on in 2016 is still, you know, in

[22:26] its appropriate form. Uh I know going back to the draft of 2001 or 2002, the

[22:31] idea was that every 5 years, uh the town would actually be taking a look at it.

[22:36] In the 2016 draft, we removed that 5-year uh look back. So now here we are

[22:41] 10 years later thinking it's probably a good time for us to take a few moments

[22:44] um throughout a year or so to get together and figure out uh what the best

[22:48] next steps might be. Um so as I said, it largely dates from the 2016 revision.

[22:55] there were not a ton of changes made. Uh I had some discussions with um Jerry

[22:59] Perry because he was involved both in the drafting and at least on the

[23:03] tangential parts of 2016, but he also supported other communities in this

[23:07] effort um at Mass DO to sort of understand best practices and what's

[23:11] going on. And also currently, you know, in the last 18 months, he's worked on a

[23:16] revision in Beverly as well. Uh generally speaking, there's a process

[23:20] that that goes forward. It starts with a charter review committee. Um in the past

[23:25] here in town we had gone to town meeting with an article that would set forth the

[23:30] charge and the composition of that committee. It's, you know, between five

[23:35] and seven people normally. Uh it would be, you know, if it's at the five person

[23:39] level, it would like to be one appointment from you all, one from the

[23:41] school committee, one from finance, and potentially two from the moderator, at

[23:45] least looking at models that have been used statewide. Uh to put together a

[23:49] group that would meet with um you know, committee chairs, committee members,

[23:54] citizens throughout the course of a year. Uh, I think when we talked about

[23:58] timeline last week or two weeks ago when we when we last met, the question was

[24:02] sort of how long would we anticipate this taking? If we were to go forward a

[24:06] town meeting in December, uh, I would think that we would be looking at a

[24:09] 12-month process where next December they would be coming forward. So it's

[24:13] you know appoint um and appoint the review body uh establish uh the charge

[24:18] and scope begin public input then we move into the meetings with the boards

[24:22] and committees staff residents and others uh to identify proposed changes

[24:26] into the spring of next year. Uh throughout the spring and summer we

[24:29] would be categor categorizing the recommendations and determining the

[24:33] legal path forward. There's two different ways to do it. We can make

[24:36] some changes and it would likely just be accepted as a home rule petition if it

[24:40] goes through town meeting. If we make significant changes, it likely would

[24:43] also need to go to a referendum. So, it' be town meeting uh the legislature and a

[24:48] referendum all that is a decision in a path we would probably wait to decide on

[24:53] until we get a little further along next spring or summer so that we understand

[24:56] sort of the breadth of what the suggested changes may be and we can

[24:59] figure out what would work best and then we would be coming to town meeting uh a

[25:03] year from now with that recommendation and those changes. The other thing a lot

[25:07] of communities are doing right now is they're working with outside

[25:10] consultants. Primarily, the Colin Center works closely with communities to do

[25:14] this. I've reached out to them to look at sort of a draft scope and to

[25:17] understand what a budget might look like, making no commitment whatsoever

[25:21] other than letting them know that we're sort of looking at this and I want to

[25:24] understand what that would look like if we were to partner with them or another

[25:26] organization that's similar. Um, and they help both facilitate the process of

[25:31] public engagement to make sure we're leveraging um, you know, technology and

[25:36] things like I know SWAC had done different um, surveys in town to make

[25:41] sure that the feedback was broader than who may show up for a meeting whether in

[25:44] in person or virtual. Uh, so we would work potentially with them on on things

[25:48] like that, but they also have best practices that they've developed over

[25:51] the last few years working with communities. this is one of their core

[25:54] competencies in support of municipalities across the state. So, I

[25:59] don't have the information on pricing in that yet, but we're looking into that as

[26:01] well. Um, but I'm happy to answer any questions. Trying to keep this to five

[26:05] minutes so that we can facilitate a discussion uh without stepping on the

[26:09] IRA time too much. >> Are there grant opportunities for to

[26:14] engage with >> I would look at the community compact.

[26:16] I'm not certain. I can look into that though.

[26:19] Can you help us understand what the difference is between a committee and an

[26:23] elected formal charter commission? >> Well, the appointed committee would

[26:28] allow it to be, you know, a number of boards identifying, like I said, if

[26:33] there was a five participant board, it would likely be one from each of the

[26:36] three committees I mentioned. And then >> the one thing I neglected to say, the

[26:39] moderator would in the past at least choose from elected town meeting

[26:43] members. So, it's not just picking, you know, someone that has not been engaged

[26:46] and involved. uh an elected process is necessarily more political I think than

[26:53] a process where you know elected bodies appoint someone that they think is well

[26:57] qualified to help lead this process for the community. But at what point do is

[27:01] there a choice that we can make? Is I'm just trying to understand the mechanisms

[27:06] of how this proceeds in terms of are is it the select board who sets the the the

[27:13] delivery of how that committee operates? In other words, I mean there's the

[27:19] there's state law that dictates a commission, right? Versus a committee.

[27:24] at where does the town lie in an obligation to fulfill that law?

[27:31] In other words, do we are we forced to create a commission?

[27:35] » It it is better to start with the committee so that you can identify what

[27:39] the breadth of the changes are. If the idea was to come back with

[27:43] » we need to change to a a mayor council form of government. it would be a

[27:47] completely different idea than we want to look at some appointment authorities

[27:50] to make sure that they best represent the community in this and that was

[27:54] really the questions that came up last spring were really around appointment

[27:57] authority. It was not a wholesale change of uh the sort of structure of town

[28:02] government. It was making sure that what we're doing now and what we decided 10

[28:05] years ago still makes sense now um in 2026.

[28:10] » Does that represent I mean the three members of the board does that

[28:13] reasonably represent the conversations we had in the spring?

[28:16] » Yeah. Yeah. >> So, are we gonna come back to this

[28:18] conversation? >> We can.

[28:20] » Okay. >> Sure. We could table it and then go to

[28:22] Iraq. >> Yeah,

[28:23] » that's fine. >> All right. So, we will table the rest of

[28:26] this and we will move on to the Earth Removal Advisory Committee joint meeting

[28:30] and public hearing. This hearing was postponed or was this a new hearing?

[28:35] Can't recall from >> new open.

[28:38] » It was never opened. Great. Uh so uh if you guys want to open your meeting,

[28:48] we have to vote to open the public hearing first.

[28:51] » So move >> say

[28:53] » second. >> Second.

[28:54] » All in favor? >> I now you guys can open your meeting.

[29:01] » Okay, >> you're good.

[29:04] » Okay, great. >> Thank you.

[29:11] All right, Joe, you want to take it away?

[29:13] » Uh, sure. I when we last uh met on this this topic, um when you had the permit

[29:20] in front of you, uh Iraq had uh asked that you you uh postpone consideration

[29:25] of its approval because uh the town earth removal bylaw has a lot of um

[29:32] conditions that are required to be part of the permit. And um we did not include

[29:38] many of those provisions and we felt that and nor did we address those

[29:41] provisions that we did not include in the permit. And because this is the law

[29:46] of the land, we felt that we necess we needed to say something about those

[29:50] provisions of the bylaw that we did not include in this permit. So the only

[29:56] difference between the permit you have in front of you and the one that you had

[30:00] um when we last met is the fourth paragraph on the first page.

[30:06] And it effectively says that um let me stop by saying that um these

[30:14] requirements are in uh the earth removal uh by uh bylaw is article 13 and I'm

[30:21] specifically looking at section 4 which is general limitations and under general

[30:26] limitations uh there are um it it essentially says

[30:30] the permit shall include but not be limited to conditions that address the

[30:35] following and there are approximately 18 different conditions that need to be uh

[30:39] addressed. We did not address them all. And this paragraph explains why not all

[30:46] of those uh conditions are addressed. And in large part, it's because they

[30:51] either are inapplicable, impractical, impossible,

[30:56] and and um so we did not include them, but we also um didn't want to say

[31:03] nothing about them. And for for example um in in the bylaw it says that um

[31:11] the permit shall include conditions that address type and location of structures.

[31:16] First of all it's vague. Um second maybe it refers to a construction trailer but

[31:23] planning would take care of that. um once once a project goes through

[31:27] planning and zoning and the building inspector does does Iraq really have the

[31:32] authority to say no no we don't like those structures we want to put them

[31:35] elsewhere it doesn't or it shouldn't so of these uh provisions uh set up

[31:40] conflict but there if at best they're redundant but um at worst conflict

[31:46] another one is uh number seven the area and depth of excavation again that's

[31:51] something that's going to be dictated by the permits that the project has

[31:54] received does have the ability or or the board of

[31:58] select the select board have the ability to come in and say no no we don't like

[32:03] that we don't you know we want you to do instead of 10 feet we want you to do 8

[32:07] feet even though you have a permit for 10 ft so we felt we had to say something

[32:11] in the permit that addresses why that is not a condition in the permit

[32:18] and many and many others and that fourth paragraph is what uh accomplishes that

[32:23] purpose Um the select board certainly has the

[32:27] prerogative to say, well, we do want some of these conditions that that IRA

[32:32] did not address included. And if we and if that were the case, there would have

[32:36] to be discussion and we'd go back and and and if that were the case, I don't

[32:40] think IRA would have to approve again. I think we're at the select board stage.

[32:45] So changes that you prefer to make, you you can make. So, uh that's where we're

[32:52] at. So uh uh you know certainly uh willing to entertain any discussion of u

[32:57] every any aspect of the permit. Um I have nothing really more to present and

[33:02] and would recommend that the select board um accept the recommendation of

[33:07] IRA for the permit for 555 uh Essex Street.

[33:13] » Okay. Um I just have a couple follow-ups to what this new paragraph. Um, are we

[33:21] considering the any adjustments to the bylaw post

[33:26] this permit outside of >> Yeah. Um,

[33:30] we we have uh talked about taking a look at the bylaw uh and presenting

[33:35] amendments uh for the spring town meeting.

[33:37] » Great. >> So, uh we haven't gotten into that yet,

[33:40] but uh it's the bylaw. It's it's there are provisions in the bylaw that

[33:45] are appropriate for standalone projects that have a beginning and an end. And

[33:49] then we have the quarry >> right

[33:51] » and there are many provisions here that just don't apply to the quarry and there

[33:55] are many that don't apply to a standalone project. So uh we are going

[33:59] to be discussing how we can segregate those

[34:02] » and clarify them and make them less vague and um so yes that'll be coming in

[34:08] the spring. >> I have a couple questions. one is uh

[34:13] under four 4D for contaminated soil and material. How is that monitored?

[34:21] » Well, I think a lot of the problems with with forc in the bylaw is that there's

[34:28] no mechanism to enforce. Uh there's no penalties if enforcement found a a

[34:33] problem. So, I don't think it's practical or realistic to think that

[34:38] Iraq members are going to be monitoring going down at the at at project sites

[34:42] and and monitoring um a lot of what goes down. Although Tony might I mean uh

[34:52] » but um >> but uh we have addressed the um these

[35:00] issues with with um the project u representatives and so if you wanted

[35:04] detail on how that those those items are being handled I think they are better

[35:09] position to discuss that. You want to say something? Could I suggest um I

[35:13] don't know if you're ready to kind of give an overview um Andy or Ken or Nick.

[35:18] I'm guessing you're here to speak on the project. Could you give an overview of

[35:21] the scope that this permit is going to be authorizing?

[35:25] » We'd be glad to. Just just for the record, my name is attorney Ken Shutzer.

[35:30] I'm really here on behalf of the Davis Company who is doing the construction

[35:35] Callahan of the project of the 161 residential units. Um the applicant Nick

[35:42] Manino is the one who was actually doing the site work and he's be the one who

[35:46] filled out the application and could probably give you more of the technical

[35:49] details than I but we we assembled this group in anticipation that you never

[35:54] know what's going to be asked until you're asked. U we we see the project

[35:58] coming along. We're very proud of what what hopefully you've seen and we just

[36:02] uh as a result of removing more than uh 400 cubic yards of soil. Um we've we've

[36:09] triggered the point where Iraq is now involved and clearly you are as well as

[36:14] the as the permitting authority. So if you want to direct any questions to Mr.

[36:19] Manino, I'm sure he'll be glad to answer them for you.

[36:22] » That would be great if what's the like what is the amount of cubic earth you're

[36:27] going to be moving? What's the like just give me a 30,000 foot of what activities

[36:33] we are going to be permitting through this beyond the fact that you're going

[36:36] to be moving 450 ft or more offsite. >> So Nick Manino from Manino Construction

[36:41] representing uh Callahan and the owner Davis Companies. Uh the site's a unique

[36:47] site 555 is it's a big project with 163 units but everyone was familiar with it.

[36:54] A relatively flat parking lot. There's not uh we have some we generate

[37:01] more earth removal sometimes from a a single family residence than we do this

[37:07] you know rather big site because our our cuts and fills are very close. So uh

[37:13] that's kind of an overview. The short answer is about a thousand cubic yards.

[37:19] Um and uh and fortunately the material that

[37:24] was put in there when the parking lot was uh built 30 or so years ago was

[37:31] hauled down from aggregate industries at the time. I think it was Lin Sand and

[37:35] Stone are our our aggregate now wholesome uh and that's been approved

[37:41] through uh through Callahan and the geotechnical

[37:47] engineers that geoengineering uh that we have on site to reuse

[37:54] um most if not all of that material. So, uh, it's it's a relatively small amount

[38:00] of material that will leave the site for such a large site. Yeah.

[38:04] » How much of the material is moving off site?

[38:06] » About 1,000 yards. >> Okay. Thousand yards. The rest of it's

[38:09] going to remain on site in some other Okay.

[38:11] » Yeah. To give a, you know, comparison, there was 30 30,000 yards moved off for

[38:18] the uh, elementary school that was recently built.

[38:23] » Thank you. I have a question about the big dirt pile next to stop and shop. Um

[38:30] I have had calls from people asking is it healthy that there's this huge dirt

[38:34] pile down in our area here and um and there so I have had concerns about

[38:41] whether or not that's a health hazard or whatever kind of issues might come of

[38:46] that. So and it says here in the permit that it gets sprayed down um etc. But is

[38:52] it being sprayed down on the weekends or is that how is that being monitored?

[38:57] » So the the material we have a water truck on site and it is sprayed down

[39:03] regularly. Uh it it isn't and we have worked in there on an occasional

[39:08] Saturday for a little bit but uh for the most part no it's not sprayed down but

[39:13] it's also not dug and moved around on Saturday. So, it's usually when we're

[39:19] digging into the material and and loading it. Um, we're we're adding to

[39:24] that pile as we dig foundations and then we're removing from that pile as we back

[39:29] fill the foundations, you know, creating as much of a balanced site as we can.

[39:34] So, it's it's as we're moving it around the site, tracking around with heavy

[39:39] dump trucks and loaders that you tend to kick up the dust and and need to keep

[39:43] the site wet to minimize um minimize the dust, which is the real problem. And uh

[39:50] the loom pile that was there was hydroed and the the earth pile that's there

[39:56] that's being reused is wet regularly certainly when we're digging into it.

[40:00] » Great. Makes sense. >> Thank you. So I I have a question about

[40:03] the the Japanese notwheat part of this. I know this was discussed in prior Iraq

[40:07] meetings. Um can you give us an update as to how you're managing that actively?

[40:11] Has it been moved off site? Is it is it separately identified? And I thought

[40:16] there was conversation recently about hydro seeding the Japanese not weed pile

[40:22] which doesn't necessarily aid in its um what's the word I'm trying to find? Uh

[40:28] diffusion into the environment. Can you talk a little bit about what you're

[40:32] doing with with that? >> I'll let Mike from Calan talk to it.

[40:41] » So, the the pile of lom that was hydro seated is also the pile that the

[40:46] Japanese not wood grew in. Um, we've hired a consultant who has

[40:52] come up with a rough plan on how to treat it. And at the same time, we

[40:57] covered it with tarps today to help as it starts to flower this fall, minimize

[41:03] how much of it could spread to other properties.

[41:07] But the gist of the treatment would be to cut it, spray it with a pesticide in

[41:14] the end of September, beginning of October this year, and then next year

[41:19] cut it in June and spray it in September as well.

[41:26] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[41:33] » And I'll add something to that. It it looks worse now because it's all in one

[41:38] spot, >> but it's actually a lot easier for the

[41:42] control of it, whether it's covering it with tops or treating it. It was spread

[41:46] out all along Essex Street, and it's a real problem u on on a lot of sites, you

[41:52] know, throughout the town and the state. So, we're it's it's a bit of of a

[41:57] learning curve for all of us, but the fact that it's in one condensed pile is

[42:00] making the treatment plan a little bit easier. And so when you do use

[42:05] pesticides because the drainage area does go straight to the ocean is there

[42:09] consideration of making sure that there is no again diffusion of the product

[42:14] into the into the basin. >> So there that has been

[42:19] that was discussed with the consultant we were talking about which is why he's

[42:24] still going back and forth on a final written plan of okay I'm going to use

[42:28] this pesticide or this one. And I think that's part of the um part of what he's

[42:35] looking into. >> So you really don't have a plan.

[42:38] » Could you have the people speak up? >> Sure. I'd be glad to have the people

[42:43] speak up. Could you just speak into the microphone so it circulates through the

[42:47] room? >> Thank you.

[42:50] So, I was saying um that's part of the consultant's issue right now is that

[42:54] he's going back and forth and making sure whatever pesticide he decides to

[42:58] use doesn't cause any environmental issues.

[43:06] » Okay. Additional questions outside of the

[43:10] notweed?

[43:13] I'm seeing none, >> we will move on to a motion. Motion to

[43:18] close the public hearing. Is that what you're looking for?

[43:21] » Do we have to any public comment? >> We will end the public hearing first and

[43:24] then take the motion after. >> I was asking if we do public comments.

[43:30] » We do have public comment as part of the public hearing. Is do any of the public?

[43:36] » Anybody online? >> No.

[43:37] » Nope. Thanks for the reminder. Looks like we're good.

[43:42] » So, we have a motion on the table to close the public hearing. Can I have a

[43:45] second? Ted. All in favor? >> I

[43:48] » I Okay, we will now move for a motion. >> Motion to approve the public. Motion to

[43:53] approve the permit. >> Second.

[43:55] » All in favor? >> I.

[43:58] » Thank you all. >> Thank you very much. Thank you for

[44:00] joining us and for the information.

[44:06] » We will move on to the Kleinfelder report. We did receive some an email

[44:13] from the public asking us to speak very clearly into our microphones because it

[44:17] is difficult to hear even online. So if we could get very close like a rock star

[44:23] as Joe said that would be helpful to them.

[44:26] » Can you make me present?

[44:33] » Thank you Iraq. Thank you.

[44:42] All right.

[44:47] » There's another microphone there if you want to.

[44:49] » Who does that? >> Who?

[44:51] » Trying to do it for me right now.

[44:56] » So, I can share the slides.

[45:01] » Okay. Maybe you guys could start while we try to pull the slides up.

[45:06] » Sure. Um, I guess I'll just make an opening comment. This is David Peterson

[45:10] with Kleinfelder. Um we do have a three different companies that kind of worked

[45:16] on this as well as a bunch of folks from the town. So I just want to make

[45:19] acknowledgements and we also have um representatives from Mallister Marine

[45:24] Engineering here and Woodsole Group as well as Kleinfelder. So I want to

[45:27] acknowledge the consultant team. Um so Brandon Raymond is to my left from

[45:32] Woodshole Group, Seth Bryant from Kleinfelder and then on the um screen

[45:36] there is John McAllister. Hopefully we can get the technology work that he can

[45:40] speak. Um and so um you know we were um first brought together to work on this

[45:48] coastal resiliency plan um focused specifically on Fisherman's Beach. Um

[45:53] Doug Thompson I think was the you sort of the the force behind it from the

[45:57] select board originally and um you know so it it it started from there.

[46:01] Originally we were pursuing some grant funding for the project. Um we were

[46:06] unfortunately unable to uh get the grant but we were very happy that the town

[46:10] proceeded with a lesser scoped project. Um, and one of the themes and

[46:17] recommendations of this is, you know, because we had to cut the scope down and

[46:21] the cost down, um, we didn't have much of a public outreach or any real public

[46:25] outreach piece at all, that's going to be a really critical part of, you know,

[46:29] any future steps. Um, and we have a slide about that later. Um, so in terms

[46:34] of the the the last slide, which I'll just talk about it now because we don't

[46:39] need to wait till the end. um in terms of who was involved in the town. So um

[46:44] Marsy Galaska and Tim Milikin um were part of it. Gino Cresta, Martha Schmidt,

[46:50] Liz Smith, Jackson Schultz, Tadoulie. So we had a variety of um meetings and

[46:55] input um from town officials and and committee members. Um but you know,

[47:00] lacking is like a really at large um you know, public outreach campaign, which is

[47:05] something that we we know will need to um happen in the future.

[47:09] Um, so, um, the technical team is everyone who's not me. So, um, I know

[47:16] you guys want to hear from, um, you know, Seth and and Brandon and John. So,

[47:20] I'm going to turn it over to Seth who will facilitate the rest of the

[47:23] presentation. >> Shannon, are you able to take John off

[47:27] mute >> or at least allow him? Oh, he's off.

[47:31] Okay, he's good. Okay, thank you. Never mind. You're good.

[47:34] » Is he able to speak? Do we know? Did that technical hiccup tested?

[47:38] » Okay. >> Oh, okay. How you doing? You want to

[47:39] try?

[47:42] » Nope. We can't hear him. >> We can see you talking, but we cannot

[47:46] hear you, sir. >> Let's uh keep going and maybe

[47:53] somebody else can act like his voice. >> Yeah, we're prepared to cover his

[47:56] content. >> Thank you. We'll come back if we can get

[47:59] it to work, but let's go a different direction.

[48:01] » Yeah, he's a few slides in, so >> Okay, good.

[48:03] » Perfect. Has a little bit of time. Um, sure. So to get started um just a quick

[48:09] agenda. We'll give some background on the project. Uh the aim of this project

[48:12] was both to look at what is the vulnerability for Swamp Scott on the

[48:15] coast uh particularly around Fisherman's Beach. Um so we'll start with that

[48:20] vulnerability assessments and then move into an alternatives analysis uh where

[48:24] we dug in and looked at what type of solutions might be appropriate for the

[48:28] coast to protect um your town from flooding in the future. Um from there uh

[48:33] Brandon and Wood which whole group worked on some modeling to show um what

[48:37] the benefit of some of these solutions might look like. Um then we'll move on

[48:40] to recommendations. Next slide.

[48:45] Um so just real quickly to give some background on what your coastal

[48:48] vulnerability looks like, we looked at a range of scenarios um for various

[48:53] climate horizons. So looking at 2030, 2050, 2070, looking with sea level rise,

[48:59] um how the risk might change moving forward. Um I have just a snapshot here

[49:03] of what in 2030 the projected coastal risk is. Um so this shows the

[49:08] probability in a given year that these areas might flood. Um and you can see

[49:12] the dark blue on the left over by Kings Beach right on the Lind border um has a

[49:16] highest probability extending inland. Um, and then the focus of this project

[49:20] was around Fisherman's Beach, um, which you can see there's a number of flood

[49:24] pathways that really, um, go pretty pretty deep into town, past Puritan Road

[49:28] and Humphrey Street. Um, so even though it's a it's a small sliver coastline,

[49:33] it's relatively low position. Um, means that flooding happens, it's a flood

[49:37] pathway that could infect a much broader area. Um and in the report which um is

[49:43] currently in a draft form and I know we've provided to um select board as

[49:47] well as the committee working on it um we go through and identify all of the

[49:52] town assets that are at risk of flooding um with a probability that they would

[49:56] flood in a given year. Um so just highlighted here the fish house, the

[50:00] police station and um the Humphrey Street pump station. Um that's three

[50:04] town owned facilities kind of right in the center of that fisherman's beach

[50:09] flood pathway. Uh next slide.

[50:14] Um so as part of this project we also looked at um the compound risk of both

[50:19] coastal flooding. So that last one was looking at a coastal event. So think um

[50:24] coming in from the coast, waves, storm surge, things like that. Um but we also

[50:28] looked at what the risk was from extreme rainfall um

[50:33] compound with the coastal risk. Um so here is an example of one scenario we

[50:38] looked at. um where there's a relatively high tide, but not one that would cause

[50:43] flooding on its own. But if that were to occur when a large precipitation event

[50:46] happened, in this case a 25-y year um return period event, and you can see um

[50:53] the areas at flood risk are similar. Um what happens if there's a large storm

[50:57] event that comes in when there's high tide? Um this whole area drains to the

[51:00] ocean. So you have reduced capacity in your storm water system. Um, so there's

[51:05] there's flutters present just from the combination of high tide and rainfall

[51:08] and not being to drain out. Um, so just wanted to point out that this was also

[51:13] part of the analysis. Um, and then on the right there, I've just showed um

[51:17] with climate change what the expected risk is looking like to change for

[51:21] Swans. Um, you can see just the bar chart there um how the 100red-year storm

[51:27] or the 1% probability in a given year. you can see from now until 2070 um a

[51:33] pretty large expected increase. Um so that's kind of the risk that we were

[51:37] looking at. >> Um

[51:40] » can I ask please >> a question? So I just have uh

[51:44] » a quick question because my understanding is this report this report

[51:48] was done to update the last report that we had. Right. Correct. So we had that

[51:53] last report now this is the update on this one. The last report it said that

[51:56] we were most most vulnerable in the Humphrey Street area by the police

[52:01] station and the um pumping station. And now is this report saying that we're

[52:06] most vulnerable uh at the fish house? >> So the fish house um

[52:13] is is in that same zone. I we we did rank everything from vulnerability. Um I

[52:19] think the the police station and the pump station were still the highest. Um,

[52:23] but the fish house is a low point in the area that acts as a flood pathway. Okay.

[52:26] » Um, so it's a critical one we wanted to address as well.

[52:29] » And then what about over here over to the left? Because that's in dark blue,

[52:33] the one that's >> like on Phillips Park.

[52:36] » Yeah. >> Yep. So that area had the highest

[52:40] probability of flooding under these future projections.

[52:42] » Right. So this is what's confusing me is the is this a change?

[52:46] » That's King's Beach and >> going into Lynn, I think, right?

[52:49] » Yeah. On the left says Scott, right? Correct. Yeah, I just don't

[52:53] » that's Pearl Street. >> Not sure what that is there. I think I'm

[52:56] just trying to get clarity on uh the difference in the reports from the first

[53:00] report to this report. Is it is it a different situation now or is it

[53:06] » Yeah. So, so we we relied on updated modeling completed by Woods Hole Group.

[53:10] Um and in that left area by Kings Beach, there was an expansion in the area.

[53:15] Okay. >> Um that is looking like it could be

[53:17] prone to flooding in the future. Um, so we've we've added in assets over

[53:25] there and um catalog streets at risk of flooding and their probability in the

[53:29] report. Um, so those are new additions. Um, that's correct.

[53:33] » Um, when we looked at flood mitigation, we focused on fisherman's speech because

[53:37] that was the scope of the project. Um, but

[53:41] there that's correct that those other areas are at risk too,

[53:46] » right? I guess I guess my understanding from the meetings were the scope of the

[53:50] project was to update our update our vulnerability study. I didn't I I didn't

[53:56] walk away thinking it was fisherman's beach. I thought it was the entire the

[54:00] the previous to update the previous study.

[54:02] » Yeah. No, you're right. The the vulnerability and the the extent of

[54:06] flooding was updated for the entire coastline of the town,

[54:09] » but the mitigation aspect and like the alternative analysis was focused

[54:13] specifically on Fisherman's Beach. that was deemed to be the not by us by the

[54:17] town that was deemed to be the highest priority segment to look at first.

[54:20] » Okay. >> Um it actually has like quite a lot of

[54:24] assets, town owned assets, you know, critical facilities inside that that

[54:28] zone. So, it made sense to us, >> right? But would it would it be fair to

[54:31] say that the most critical asset that we have would be the pump station? If we

[54:35] lose that pump station, what happens to the town?

[54:39] » We have no way to >> I know.

[54:42] Is it >> Yeah, but if you look

[54:45] » I guess if you look at this Go ahead. >> is what I've gathered from this is the

[54:51] entry points for the uh coastal flooding are along Fisherman's Beach, Iceman's

[54:56] Beach, Wales Beach, that whole area is the entry point for the flooding that

[55:00] would >> through elevation change and rainfall,

[55:04] you know, sink to the darker blue areas that are inland. Is that correct? Yeah,

[55:08] there's there's a small number of finite entry points and then they'll basically

[55:12] flood a large inland area. So, kind of the point of this is to try to protect

[55:17] those vulnerable points of entry, right? So,

[55:19] » so you mitigate the pathways in order to prevent flooding across the whole area.

[55:23] That's what say >> y

[55:29] skeptic. >> Well, yeah, I am a sk I'm going to tell

[55:31] you right now. My biggest worry is the pump station. You know, I understand,

[55:36] you know, well, the whole area, >> I'm a little familiar with the area, so

[55:40] the whole area has me concerned, but that pump station and where are we most

[55:45] if you said where are we most vulnerable? We're vulnerable right

[55:48] there. >> Right.

[55:49] » Correct me if I'm wrong because if we lose that pump station,

[55:52] » we we lost it in 2011. >> We flooded it in 2011,

[55:56] » right? >> Yeah.

[55:58] » Right. and the the flood pathways we're trying to address as the alternatives

[56:03] assessment looks at cutting off flooding to that area where the pump station is.

[56:08] » Yeah. I at the end of your presentation you've got the modeling for the proposed

[56:12] solutions, right? That take away that >> flooding risk.

[56:15] » Yeah. >> Projected. Great.

[56:17] » Yeah. I think those will help. >> Great.

[56:21] » Um let's move on to the next slide. Um so we we assessed a large range of

[56:27] alternatives looking at cutting off these flood pathways particularly for

[56:31] fisherman speech. Um we looked at um a range of criteria and assessing those to

[56:36] try to come up with an objective way to cut some and move others to the top. Um

[56:40] we worked with the committee that Dave mentioned representing various

[56:44] committees in town in order to come up with um what we would prioritize and we

[56:50] have the full list of criteria here. I'll just point out that the ones that

[56:54] um were decided to be the most important were the effectiveness of the solution

[56:58] at the capital cost and then stakeholder acceptance. So um how it affects

[57:03] residents and the community in the area. Um but we did assess every alternative

[57:07] that we'll be talking about against all of these criteria uh to come up with a

[57:12] composite score and those scores were used to rank the alternatives we'll talk

[57:16] about. Um so if we move on we can dive into what those were that we looked at.

[57:21] Um so we broke the coastline into three segments based on um kind of distinct

[57:27] attributes of each one. Uh so on the far left we have the fisherman's beach

[57:32] parking lot area uh which is relatively lowlying and potential flood pathway um

[57:37] owned by the town. Um to the right we have the Puritan road area. Um we

[57:42] separated this one out because it's a little distinct because it's mostly

[57:45] privately owned. It's currently protected by private seaw walls. Um, and

[57:49] then lastly, we looked at the fish house as its own alternative um, just because

[57:54] there are a lot of historic considerations with it being um, a

[57:56] nationally listed uh, property um, right in the mix of the flood zone. Um, and

[58:03] then lastly, we had a few other alternatives we looked at that were kind

[58:05] of beyond those um, that included a living breakwater in the harbor itself

[58:10] um, as well as other solutions like tide gates and storm water pump stations.

[58:15] Um so if we move to the next slide. Um after our initial analysis using the

[58:21] criteria we discussed we did a high level analysis and we we cut some right

[58:25] off the bat. Um so these included elevating Humphrey Street and Puritan

[58:30] Road. Uh we found that these just weren't feasible because of the

[58:33] elevation you would need to get to um connecting to driveways. It it just

[58:37] wasn't really a possibility. Um and we eliminated the living breakwater just

[58:43] due to high costs. Um and it it wasn't the most effective solution to provide

[58:49] flood protection for the coastline. Um so what that left us with um we looked

[58:55] at within the parking lot area um elevating the parking lot itself um or

[59:01] doing strategic retreat. So removing the parking lot and replacing it with

[59:04] something more like a dune, a a naturebased solution, something that

[59:08] could protect behind it. Um along Puritin Road, we looked at the

[59:13] possibility of augmenting or raising the existing seaw walls that are already

[59:17] there to provide a cohesive barrier to flooding. Um and we also looked at

[59:22] building up the beach in front of the barriers and um again making a dune. So

[59:27] a more nature-based solution. And then lastly, at the fish house, we looked at

[59:31] flood proofing the fish house, raising it, relocating it, um or fully replacing

[59:37] it. Um and we'll get more into that later. Um and for all of these, we are

[59:41] looking at a design flood elevation of 13 ft. Um so that's 13 ft above sea

[59:46] level. Um for reference, the ground elevation there is at about 10 ft. Um so

[59:51] this is about think right at the fish house, just everything would be 3 ft

[59:54] above the existing ground level. Um that's kind of what you need to protect

[59:58] too to make sure um that these storms we were looking at wouldn't wouldn't flood

[1:00:02] beyond the coastline. >> What's the reason to design to 13 ft? Is

[1:00:07] there a statutory or is that best practice or what's

[1:00:10] » So we we used um the resilient mass action team's guidance which is from um

[1:00:15] EA um and their recommendation for this type of flooding was to look at the the

[1:00:20] 2050.2 probability storm event. Um so 0.2% 2%

[1:00:25] chance it happens in the end of the year in 2050 with sea level rise. So a fairly

[1:00:31] conservative estimate. >> Okay.

[1:00:33] » Um so that projected elevation the peak one for the coastline that was 13 ft.

[1:00:38] » Okay. Thanks. >> You said the current um elevation of the

[1:00:42] parking lot is what? >> Uh 10 ft.

[1:00:44] » Okay. So if there is there is a barricade around the parking lot, right?

[1:00:49] There's jersey barriers. >> Jersey barriers.

[1:00:51] » That's not effective enough. You have to like I mean it's not a barrier but it's

[1:00:56] barriering. >> Yeah. So so we one of the options was

[1:00:59] looking at replacing it with a more permanent seaw wall. Okay.

[1:01:02] » Um and it has to be built to be able to withstand wave action. So

[1:01:06] » need something behind it. >> Yeah.

[1:01:07] » Got it. >> When we talk about going back to the 13t

[1:01:10] question when you're talking about storms and wave driven storms you can

[1:01:13] get significantly above that. What is is for some, you know, I is 13 ft really

[1:01:18] enough or is that just the mean sea level rise that you're worried about as

[1:01:22] opposed to impact of windblown storms? >> So, hurricanes,

[1:01:28] » those are No, it's looking at the um and maybe Brandon can speak to this one

[1:01:33] because he did work, but >> hi. Um yeah, thanks. Um yeah, my name is

[1:01:36] Brandon Raymond. I'm a coastal engineer with Woods Hole Group. Thank you very

[1:01:39] much for having me and thank you Client Felder for including us on this

[1:01:42] important project. Um to answer your question about the 13 ft what that

[1:01:47] represents is what we call still water elevation. So this is the combination of

[1:01:51] tides and storm surge wind driven storm surge. Uh what it does not include is

[1:01:56] the influence of wave runup up onto a beach or something that might be over

[1:02:00] topping a seaw wall or something like that which is tends to be something that

[1:02:04] handle is either if you're not protecting against it you're usually

[1:02:07] accounting for it in drainage of catch basations and things like that but

[1:02:11] ultimately that's uh the 2050.0 zero no 2%

[1:02:16] » basically the five what we call the 500year event is so it's by 2050 so

[1:02:22] that's including sea level rise and then of course the statistical analysis to

[1:02:26] get us that >> so the term still water is a little

[1:02:28] counter u intuitive >> still water and the yeah I guess you're

[1:02:32] right yes to it >> yeah oh that's why I was asking the

[1:02:35] question because I was a little confused when I saw that I when I saw the word

[1:02:38] still water I thought it was >> what it really means is so it's the so

[1:02:42] it's the influence of tides wind driven storm surge and then also um what we

[1:02:46] call wave setup. So anytime waves are breaking at the shoreline, that

[1:02:50] turbulence actually raises up the water level just to hair. And so when you add

[1:02:54] all that up together, you get a still water elevation at the shoreline. Okay,

[1:02:57] great. Thank you.

[1:03:02] » Thanks, Brandon. Um

[1:03:07] any more questions on this one before we dive into these areas?

[1:03:13] I just I I did want to go back just uh back to the page where you had the

[1:03:17] analysis piece of this where where did the waiting come from?

[1:03:21] » Um we did a workshop with um the representatives from the town on the

[1:03:26] committee that Dave mentioned um where we provided that these were the criteria

[1:03:31] that we were planning to look at um and we worked with them to develop if we

[1:03:34] were missing any and then they went through and waited um their priority for

[1:03:38] those. >> Okay.

[1:03:39] » So none of this was was our thoughts. It was um reflects what the town thinks.

[1:03:48] » Does this match plus or minus what you see other communities doing in terms of

[1:03:52] waiting like efficacy, social acceptance, and capital cost? Are those

[1:03:56] what most communities kind of rate highest?

[1:03:58] » Uh definitely. Yeah. I And I mean effectiveness, efficacy is we want a

[1:04:04] solution that's going to be effective. So

[1:04:05] » 100%. >> Definitely agreed that that should be

[1:04:08] the top one. >> Thanks.

[1:04:12] Um, I think we can move on to the next slide.

[1:04:16] » Um, so the first area is the Humphrey Street and Fish House parking lot. I

[1:04:20] think John was going to take this one. Um,

[1:04:24] » yes. Can you guys hear me now? >> We can. We can.

[1:04:28] » Thank you, John. >> All right. We're good. All right.

[1:04:29] » Welcome, John. >> Well, thank you everyone. Sorry for the

[1:04:32] technical diff and not being able to be there. But John Mallister, Mallister

[1:04:35] Marine Engineering, again worked with the team on this uh specifically looking

[1:04:39] at the parking lot here. Um what we looked at once we got into this analysis

[1:04:45] really four separate options as you can see on the slide. Um one and three kind

[1:04:50] of go together where it is um essentially augmenting what's there for

[1:04:55] existing infrastructure by a raising of permanent seaw wall

[1:04:59] that's designed be probably reinforced concrete but it's designed to resist uh

[1:05:04] wave action and hydrostatic pressures that would be forced from additional um

[1:05:10] water rising. Um, on the option one, you would have that along the front side of

[1:05:17] the beach or on the south side of the parking lot, if you will. And because we

[1:05:20] want to maintain access, you kind of have to design for the norm and for the

[1:05:24] storm, you would have to augment uh the three openings for the boat ramp, the

[1:05:31] stairs down, and the um the other access all the way to the west. They have to

[1:05:36] augment that seaw wall with deployable barrier. Um, important to note the the

[1:05:44] uh parking lot isn't perfectly flat elevation. It does range its lowest in

[1:05:49] the east by the fish house where it's about 9.8 and it actually rises up to

[1:05:53] about 11.2 uh all the way to the west and at Chesan

[1:05:57] Park which is over kind of to the the park just to the west of the facility is

[1:06:01] actually above elevation 13. So we don't have to do any interventions there. It's

[1:06:04] actually a natural barrier that we can build off of and connect into that. Um,

[1:06:09] so I'm going to skip to option three. Uh, it's a similar strategy to what

[1:06:13] option one was. Uh, except it'd be on the back side or the north side of the

[1:06:17] parking lot. And, um, what's attractive about that is there's already a little

[1:06:22] curving little wall there. It just have to be brought up about uh, 2 to 3 ft

[1:06:27] higher. It could be made nice. You could, you know, it would have to be

[1:06:30] reinforced concrete again to withstand the hydrostatic pressures, but you could

[1:06:33] do some stamped stones on it, make it look aesthetically pleasing. And then

[1:06:37] you only have two um two areas you have to close off on just the entrance into

[1:06:41] the into the parking lot and the exit. Um those areas would just need to be

[1:06:46] deployed in advance of a storm because usually these things are forecast and

[1:06:50] you have some time. So Gino and his crew would have to get out there and deploy

[1:06:53] these barriers to seal it off and then once the storm is passed and was

[1:06:58] receded, you can take that down and stuff can go back to their normal

[1:07:02] operation. Uh then the other two options we looked at were on two uh options two

[1:07:08] and four and those both involved raising the grades within the parking lot

[1:07:12] itself. So number two um is raising it and keeping it as a parking structure, a

[1:07:18] parking area I should say, but bring it up to elevation 13. Now, in order to do

[1:07:22] that with grading, you kind of have to peek it in the middle, uh just right

[1:07:26] down the center of the parking lot up to elevation 13, grade it back down to

[1:07:30] Humphrey Street, and grade it back down on the other side to um to the beach.

[1:07:36] difficulty for that is for the the boat launch. Uh if you're coming up off of

[1:07:41] Humphrey Street at around 9 and a half 10 up to 13 and then back down to launch

[1:07:47] your boat, it's for, you know, for a high clearance

[1:07:52] vehicle, it's not an issue, but when you're trolling with a trailer, you have

[1:07:55] that pinch point on the trailer, it could it could cause some issues,

[1:07:58] especially because you have to come in and back down to launch the boats. So,

[1:08:02] there is some challenges associated with that. Um, and the other issue is you're

[1:08:08] relying on the fish house to to provide some of that the connection to the fish

[1:08:13] house, I'm sorry, to provide some of that uh continuous wall of the elevation

[1:08:17] 13. So, by going up to elevation 13 in the middle, you essentially be losing a

[1:08:21] couple of blockers most likely or some other um some other impact to the fish

[1:08:26] house. But again, I think uh Seth and his team going to talk about that a

[1:08:29] little further on, but this just one one option to point out. And then option

[1:08:33] four that we looked at is a similar thing that instead of going with a

[1:08:36] parking lot be removing the whole infrastructure of parking and going with

[1:08:41] a a naturebased solution which would be doom. So you could take that out you

[1:08:45] would build it up with sand dredge out some sand place on the on the um on the

[1:08:52] shore seed it you'd have a more natural reinforced um area. it would be set

[1:08:58] through freezing. We still have the issue of uh the connection over at the

[1:09:02] fish house and there's a lot of maintenance associated with that

[1:09:06] especially early on when you're trying to get it established. Uh if we can go

[1:09:09] to the next slide please.

[1:09:13] So um as as we mentioned we kind of looked at the different impacts what

[1:09:17] factors would in uh would give us the best desired outcome for

[1:09:22] what we're looking at. uh no no option is cheap, no option is is bulletproof.

[1:09:29] You know, there's challenges, there's drawbacks, and there's positives for

[1:09:31] each one. Uh but what we ended up going with um based on these cost estimates,

[1:09:37] you know, in today's dollars, obviously things are fairly valuable lately and

[1:09:42] you know, planning forward, you you have to put in a goody factor on any

[1:09:47] budgetary figures, but in today's dollars, that's what we're looking at.

[1:09:50] But what we think is the most effective is actually unfortunately the most

[1:09:55] expensive, which would be that flood barrier along the um along the back edge

[1:09:59] along Humphrey Street on the north side of the parking lot. Uh because it has

[1:10:04] minimal impact on circulation. Uh, in fact, use it won't really affect

[1:10:11] use in the parking area because it's only about a two and a half, three foot

[1:10:14] wall and uh it doesn't affect activities and

[1:10:19] operation of the fish house because it just ties in naturally with it. So

[1:10:23] that's uh what we're uh looking for. So if we go to the next one, it's actually

[1:10:27] a better visualization of it. The next slide. Yeah. So this blue line here you

[1:10:32] could see would be that that solid wall that would be put in um between the the

[1:10:38] the sidewalk and the parking area. Raise up to elevation 13 be 2 to 3 ft high.

[1:10:45] You'd obvious have to uh reinforce the foundation be a little bit of excavation

[1:10:48] work and then those red area lines which would be the areas of deployable

[1:10:53] barriers which would be tied in um in advance of a storm when they're

[1:10:57] announced. So, you would lose, you know, a day before most likely each storm,

[1:11:00] you'd lose access to the beach. Uh, but no one's really going there because

[1:11:05] these storm events are, you know, public safety issues. So, you want to t block

[1:11:10] that off anyways, but you'd lose those two access points and then they' be

[1:11:13] taken down and you could go back to normal operations, but the only

[1:11:16] permanent infrastructure would be that that blue line.

[1:11:20] » Um, so these have Yeah, >> just a quick question. And these

[1:11:24] deployable flood barriers are like what you would see like at the mouth of

[1:11:28] Winthrop or something. They're like big heavy metal

[1:11:32] » like gates that come out. Is that what we're talking about?

[1:11:35] » There there's multiple options. Okay. >> So there are some that are that that

[1:11:40] fold up. There are some that are just actually sandbags almost like they have

[1:11:44] like reinforced you just fill them up with sand.

[1:11:46] » Um uh there's multiple options that you

[1:11:49] could put at uh and review. option did you quote cost

[1:11:55] » which I actually took uh we got three quotes and we just used the the average

[1:12:00] cost >> for the different

[1:12:02] » but what was the option technologies >> which solution

[1:12:04] » which solution did you quote sorry >> uh I so I quoted the the sandag option

[1:12:10] and the um I don't know how you call them they're kind of like

[1:12:16] » um the ones that pop up the hydrostatic ones that

[1:12:19] » they're like the base pops up like this. If you can see me in the the water flush

[1:12:24] with the ground and then they pop up. Correct.

[1:12:26] » Yeah. >> Is that right?

[1:12:28] » Yes. >> Yeah. That's like a That's not a

[1:12:30] deployable one, but it's the same idea. They So, they they sit flat like this

[1:12:34] for storage. They can be stored on a pallet and they put them out there and

[1:12:38] they just go they open up like this, but Yeah. They're not like in place per

[1:12:41] primarily like that. >> Yeah.

[1:12:43] » Okay. So when we're looking at the choice here, right, because the one on

[1:12:49] Humphrey Street is several feet higher on average,

[1:12:52] » right, from the lowest position of like 9 and 1/2 ft or roughly. So we talk I'm

[1:12:58] going go back to, you know, the original question I had before which was the 13T

[1:13:03] which encounters storms, waved driven action and so on. What is the by 2050

[1:13:08] and 2070 the expected king tide sea level rise? Where are we

[1:13:16] in at the point of a daily king tides? I know not every day but you know at the

[1:13:21] highest of high tides where are we at a regular

[1:13:26] flooding risk issue that does not account for storms?

[1:13:30] » How high? >> I'll defer to Brad on that do you know

[1:13:33] off the top of your head? the top of my head. No. Um, but I mean,

[1:13:36] we're talking about >> I'm second. Sorry. Uh, I mean, so we're

[1:13:41] comparing what a 500year storm to a to a high tide. So, I I don't have those

[1:13:47] numbers off the top of my head, but I imagine there's quite a difference.

[1:13:51] » The reason I was asking is that one is a response to an incoming storm or

[1:13:57] something that is projected or expected. The other scenario is something that

[1:14:02] happens on a regular daily basis, weekly, monthly basis. Something that

[1:14:08] you you kind of want a permanent structure there. So that's why I was

[1:14:11] asking the difference of why wouldn't you put it down at the beach as opposed

[1:14:15] to up higher. I mean, it kind of sets the

[1:14:18] table for all of the solutions we're looking at.

[1:14:23] Mhm. Well, well, sir, I'm sorry, just one more question uh thing about so the

[1:14:28] that 2% annual exceedence probability with a 500year storm is basically saying

[1:14:35] any given year that water would be met or exceeded point has a 2% chance of

[1:14:42] occurring. >> So really what we're talking about is

[1:14:45] you know how frequently are is that flooding going to be occurring. So the

[1:14:49] the king tide if you will is going to be obviously almost greater than it's a

[1:14:54] it's a 100% certainty that it's going to occur any given year. So that's that's

[1:14:59] the kind of a measure of the difference between elevations.

[1:15:02] » Wait to say it another way then we are planning for 98

[1:15:08] 99.8% of water with 2% is what you're like we

[1:15:16] are like 99.8 8% of the time we'll be fine and it's only the 2% that we are

[1:15:22] planning for right now. >> Correct.

[1:15:24] » Cuz I like >> elevation 13 though. So

[1:15:28] » I mean there's >> I think to Wayne's point um we did check

[1:15:33] just the normal tide range that's expected with sea level rise and there

[1:15:36] is no sunny day flooding expected. Um >> let let me put this at

[1:15:41] » sunny day flooding was the word I was I was trying to think of. Yes, but that

[1:15:43] was that was why I was asking the question. Sunday flooding. John, you are

[1:15:46] very well aware and familiar with our harbor and kind of the tide cycle. So to

[1:15:51] Wayne's point, >> we get a bad flood, we get a bad

[1:15:55] southwesterly. I know you've seen the photos of kind of what happens.

[1:15:59] » Does this projected solution without those deployable flood barriers put in

[1:16:05] place, but the fixed structural ones help remedy

[1:16:10] that damage? So you have to look at as a total

[1:16:15] solution. I think that's we're going to get to later. It's what if there's one

[1:16:18] weak point, if there's one area where water can get in because water's going

[1:16:22] to find its easiest path. So if there's one area in this whole connected part

[1:16:27] that is lower, uh, whatever you do, it's not going to stop it. So you have to

[1:16:31] kind of have a a whole line of defense. And you go from elevation 13 to

[1:16:35] elevation 13. And I think they'll show that a little bit later on of of why

[1:16:39] there are several pathways in that you have to address each and every pathway

[1:16:42] because even if you just hit these ones here, uh it can go around and get it and

[1:16:48] get in there very easily and you'll still have it on the back end. It'll

[1:16:50] come and float around from the back end. >> Okay,

[1:16:54] » go back one slide. >> All right, so

[1:16:59] the recommended solution is in red, right? And the the first solution

[1:17:06] basically is similar, right, in terms of benefits and drawbacks, challenges, and

[1:17:12] it's about $100,000 cheaper. So why why this solution? Why is this a better

[1:17:18] option?

[1:17:21] » Because uh that one has a lot more of a maintenance burden on it, the front edge

[1:17:26] one. So, it's going to be a lot more work to to um to get them installed

[1:17:32] because if you're working on the back end, it's easier to picture you're

[1:17:35] putting in these deployable barriers because you have to have like a seal

[1:17:38] along the bottom. It's easier to seal on asphalt than it is on a beach.

[1:17:42] » Okay. >> So, we have to make those and it it

[1:17:45] » the one that says raise seaw wall along beach edge doesn't list anything in

[1:17:49] drawback challenge in terms of on andm or anything like that. So that's why I'm

[1:17:53] asking it has the exact same drawbacks and challenges and benefits as the

[1:17:58] highest scoring solution. Do you see what I'm saying?

[1:18:03] » So I'm just trying to find out there's a $100,000 difference there. Why why that

[1:18:08] more expensive solution is the recommended. Do you know do you want to

[1:18:11] yeah >> getting at see my point there?

[1:18:14] » I think that comes out >> because your benefits and your drawback

[1:18:17] are the exact same, right? >> The only thing you have different is

[1:18:19] estimated cost and alternative. It's just not detailed enough.

[1:18:23] » Yeah, it's just maybe some upkeep is also the uh drawback and challenge

[1:18:27] should be listed there, >> right? The

[1:18:29] » Yeah, but like the life cycle cost on it would be higher

[1:18:32] » except for $100,000 different. >> John, is it fair to say that the reason

[1:18:35] why that wasn't pursued is because the ongoing maintenance of that requires

[1:18:39] more work and more capital expense to maintain that for the sameish benefit?

[1:18:46] » Absolutely. Well, cuz if if you guys can if you look at the winter profile of the

[1:18:50] beach versus the summer profile, you notice that there's a lot more of the

[1:18:53] beach exposed um during the low season when the sand washes out. So, if you

[1:19:00] have a storm coming when that sand's out there, you have to adapt how you're how

[1:19:03] you're tying in those three points. So, it's a little bit more of a challenge to

[1:19:07] deploy and maintain it. So, that's absolutely right that that there is a

[1:19:10] longer term life cycle cost for it. I have to assume there's a similar life

[1:19:14] cycle cost to the dune replacement because like there's a lot of upkeep

[1:19:17] related to well first we have to create the dune and then we have to make sure

[1:19:20] there's enough sand for it to be effective right so there's an upkeep

[1:19:24] involved

[1:19:27] » yes but they are natural there's like a the first maybe 10 years they're going

[1:19:31] to be the most intensive but once the dune is established

[1:19:34] » okay >> outside of a major storm event these

[1:19:36] dunes are pretty resilient >> okay

[1:19:41] So the as as you're showing this relative to the fish house which is a

[1:19:45] separate part of the presentation right by stopping the flooding at the beach

[1:19:50] side though don't you do a better job of protect pro protecting the rest of the

[1:19:54] fish house and thereby I don't know maybe not having to

[1:19:59] you know the cost offset of having to protect the fish house relative to doing

[1:20:03] it just up front towards the water. Does that make sense? If I could draw it out

[1:20:08] I do that. I actually think if we don't do this in concert with a fish house

[1:20:12] option that you're just locking the fish house in the water,

[1:20:16] » right? >> That's why I'm

[1:20:17] » so we need to have a fish house option that either elevates it, moves it, fix,

[1:20:22] you know. >> Well, I'm saying if if you had it if you

[1:20:24] had a if you had the barrier closer to the water, you can put a contiguous line

[1:20:28] around the fish house as opposed to pushing it back then trying to draw a

[1:20:32] wall around the fish house coming down and then moving along the water towards

[1:20:36] the rest of the beach. Yeah, I see your point. Let's maybe we

[1:20:42] can move on. >> Let's see what the other

[1:20:44] » Yeah, the other solutions >> and then I is it fair to say that

[1:20:47] there's more detail in the final written report

[1:20:50] » that answer some of the questions final decisions between different

[1:20:55] » many volumes of pages. >> We have full um descriptions for each of

[1:20:58] those like 12 criteria for each alternative. Um

[1:21:01] » Okay. >> Sorry, we were just summarizing for all.

[1:21:03] » No, no, I'll perfect. >> Do you want me to go to the next slide?

[1:21:06] » Yes. >> Yes. Can we actually skip to the C to

[1:21:09] the fish house solution since we were just talking about the fish house and

[1:21:13] then we'll go back to Purton Road if that's okay.

[1:21:15] » Yeah, definitely. >> So for the fish house we looked at four

[1:21:20] broad options. Um so flood proofing the existing structure. Um so this could be

[1:21:25] done in a couple ways. Uh wet flood proofing is where you allow flow to go

[1:21:31] into the structure itself. So you have vents in the structure and this allows

[1:21:35] the water level to equalize. Um so remove some of the hydrostatic pressure.

[1:21:40] This is actually what FEMA recommends for the the zone that the fish house is

[1:21:44] located in. Um we had a lot of concerns because it's a historic structure.

[1:21:48] Having it be wet constantly would be probably not good, but it is one we

[1:21:51] looked at. Um dry flood proofing is probably more of what you're thinking.

[1:21:55] So making the structure itself um fully impermeable. And then we also looked at

[1:22:00] just having temporary barriers surrounding the whole structure. So

[1:22:04] similar to what John was talking about and for our analysis we assumed they'd

[1:22:08] be drop in flood planks. So where you have posts and you kind of drop and

[1:22:12] hammer in um wide steel plates ahead of a storm. Um we looked at relocating the

[1:22:18] fish house. Um so preserving the structure itself, moving it elsewhere.

[1:22:23] Um and replacing the structure with either a dune or just a barrier. um but

[1:22:29] reusing the space for flood protection. Uh we looked at replacing the fish

[1:22:33] house. Um and then we also looked at elevating the fish house or raising it

[1:22:37] three feet so it was above that flood elevation.

[1:22:40] Um so next slide. Oh, sorry if you could go back. Um and we just have a mockup

[1:22:46] here. Um all of these options would have to tie into the section that John was

[1:22:51] talking about, right? Um so for the recommended approach of having a barrier

[1:22:56] along Humphrey Street, um you can see that we'd have to cover where the red

[1:23:00] hatched >> um section is. That would be where

[1:23:04] there'd be a deployable barrier and it would tie into whatever solution was

[1:23:07] done at the fish house.

[1:23:11] » Um so we have a large table here, but this is the three iterations of flood

[1:23:18] proofing that we just talked through. um relocating the fish house, replacing and

[1:23:22] elevating it. Um there were a number of aspects that we looked at with this one.

[1:23:28] Um because it's a working fish house, we we were thinking about how it would

[1:23:33] affect commercial fishermen because the storage lockers along the first floor.

[1:23:37] Um we thought about the National Historic Register listing because some

[1:23:41] of these would cause you to lose that status. Um which I know is important to

[1:23:45] some. um we have to think about uh permitting of it because it is within

[1:23:50] a high velocity zone under FEMA. So this is I know we're kind of focusing in a

[1:23:56] small area, but this is a much more complicated one just because of the

[1:23:59] nature of the building. Um so try to run through this fast, but wet flood

[1:24:04] proofing. Um we really ended up not being in favor of

[1:24:09] this one just because um the first floor of the building is all storage lockers

[1:24:13] for fishermen. And then in order to do this one, they'd be having to clear out

[1:24:17] their space ahead of a storm. Um there could be damage to the structure over

[1:24:20] time, even if the structure is not being washed away just because of wetting and

[1:24:24] then drying. Um so even though it's a FEMA recommended one, we don't think

[1:24:28] it's appropriate for this historic structure. Um dry flood proofing is

[1:24:32] tricky just in the number of openings there are to the existing structure. Um,

[1:24:37] and because the structure is historic, it's probably not designed to withstand

[1:24:40] the wave action that we'd expect to see that close to the coast. Um, so also not

[1:24:46] a recommended approach. Um, temporary flood proofing. Um, this is one that we

[1:24:51] think could work for the area. Um, this would be advantageous in that it's

[1:24:56] relatively cheap. You just have to buy these temporary barriers.

[1:25:01] um they could be set up in advance of storms um around the structure as long

[1:25:06] as there's a foundation built for them to connect to. Um it also wouldn't

[1:25:12] affect the historic designation and are relatively quick to implement. Um

[1:25:16] disadvantages is you you'd have to be prepared. You'd have to go out ahead of

[1:25:20] a storm to do this. Um >> and they're temporary because they're

[1:25:23] removable, not because they only have one usage.

[1:25:26] » Correct. Yep. You would store them Yep. somewhere in between storm events.

[1:25:32] Um, relocating the fish house. Um, this would obviously eliminate all concerns

[1:25:38] for the house itself. You'd retain the historic structure. Um, however, you

[1:25:42] would lose a national historic register listing because that listing is tied to

[1:25:47] its location along the coastline as a working fish house. Um, it would also be

[1:25:52] costly and you'd have to acquire land to move it to. Um, in talking with

[1:25:56] stakeholders, this was one that was not recommended. Um, replacing the fish

[1:26:03] house um, at a first floor elevation above

[1:26:07] that 13.0 ft. Um,

[1:26:11] this again would be challenging to retain historic designation um, even if

[1:26:15] you retained the structure. Um, and then lastly, we looked at elevating the fish

[1:26:22] house. Um, so this one would be um raising the house 3 ft, building a new

[1:26:27] foundation below it that acted as a flood barrier. Um, we'd still have those

[1:26:32] deployable barriers from the area John talked about that would tie directly

[1:26:36] into the new foundation. Um, build a new ramp system around it, so you'd have

[1:26:41] access to the storage lockers for the fishermen. Um

[1:26:45] and um so this one is one that would be

[1:26:50] consistent with the National Historic Register listing. So you could actually

[1:26:54] maintain that. Um and it is feasible. We talked to a contractor in the area who

[1:26:58] does this. Um it would just be probably by far the most costly. Um so we did

[1:27:03] cost estimates for the two that really seem feasible in this. Um came up with I

[1:27:08] think 60 560,000 for the temporary flood proofing. Um and 2.4 4 million for

[1:27:14] raising the fish house. Um, so pretty dramatic difference. Um, but again, it's

[1:27:19] it's talking about a temporary a solution that requires manpower versus

[1:27:23] one that allows the fish house to be resilient on its own. Um,

[1:27:28] » I know that was a lot of information. So, any questions?

[1:27:31] » Did you guys consult with the um commercial users to see if elevating it

[1:27:36] would be feasible? >> Yes,

[1:27:38] » we did. Yeah, we met with Ted and um John Engles, I believe was his name.

[1:27:43] » Yeah. >> Um part of the solution because of the

[1:27:46] ramping system would broaden the footprint of it. The fish house would

[1:27:49] have to be moved slightly to the side. Um and you would lose one of the two

[1:27:53] boat ramps. But talking with John, um it seemed that only one of them is current

[1:27:57] » he's now joining. >> Go ahead.

[1:28:00] » Uh only one of them is currently in use anyways. So that wasn't um a deal

[1:28:04] breaker. >> Okay. So really there's one solution,

[1:28:08] right? Out of the six you've got listed here, there's really the temporary flood

[1:28:12] proofing is your recommendation. Is that what

[1:28:15] » Well, I guess there's two if we want to spend $2.4 million,

[1:28:19] » right? Sure. Uh I guess I would like go back to one

[1:28:24] of my earlier like first comments was that this study didn't lack the public

[1:28:28] process and this is obviously a an asset that has means a lot to a lot of people

[1:28:34] and people look at it different differently even within our like

[1:28:37] committee there were different opinions as to like you know what this building

[1:28:41] could or should be right so if you're going to spend $2.4 4 million to protect

[1:28:46] an the commercial interests of you know a small select number of fishermen like

[1:28:51] some people in town like may or may not be moved by that and others that's

[1:28:55] absolutely critical to their livelihood right so um I I think bringing in

[1:29:00] broader perspectives and bringing this through a public campaign would be very

[1:29:04] helpful in terms of like decision-m I don't think you can make a decision

[1:29:08] based on where we are today right so I just wanted

[1:29:11] » right I think that that's the piece that is kind of our wheelhouse house, right?

[1:29:15] Is that that relationship with the public and understanding what their

[1:29:19] feelings are? >> Absolutely.

[1:29:20] » I think we'd, you know, um trust you to give us the actual technical

[1:29:26] recommendations and let us handle the >> the kind of, you know, stakeholder

[1:29:30] alignment and all that. So, that's kind of what what I'm thinking anyway.

[1:29:35] » Yeah. >> And I will say all these solutions are

[1:29:37] aimed at protecting the fish house. Um I think regardless of which solution you

[1:29:42] go with, you can that barrier can be built behind the fish house. Um you can

[1:29:47] provide protection for the whole town. You can just have a three-foot wall

[1:29:50] behind it. Um so this kind of can function independently.

[1:29:56] » Um so this is not necessarily a risk to the whole town. It's just really what do

[1:30:00] you want to do about this building? >> Thank you.

[1:30:03] » I guess regardless of what we decide for the fish house, we need to do something

[1:30:06] about Puritan Road though. So we want to go back to zone B.

[1:30:12] » Yes. Thank you. Yes. Um, so zone B, Puritan Road, my colleagues were kind

[1:30:17] enough to give me the most politically sensitive stretch of shoreline to talk

[1:30:21] to. So, thank you. Um, I say that because obviously we include several um,

[1:30:28] private properties along the stretch of road that are that are right right at

[1:30:31] the waterfront. And so the alternatives that we uh, assessed here um, were there

[1:30:40] were technically four. They're

[1:30:44] They're basically two, but essentially we have a a wall either be it either a

[1:30:52] steel sheep pile wall or a concrete seaw wall

[1:30:56] uh or a beach and dune combination. Uh one of them being a 30ft um width of

[1:31:04] beach or you might you might hear me call it a burm sometimes. uh that's the

[1:31:08] flat part of the beach that people recreate on or a 10- foot wide burm

[1:31:12] which obviously is a either these both of these are very narrow beaches, right?

[1:31:17] Um so we took a look at each one of those the cross-sections on the previous

[1:31:21] slide. I probably pointed out a little bit um that shows you kind of the

[1:31:26] alignment that we would be looking at. >> John

[1:31:29] » is now exiting. >> I was boring him to death apparently.

[1:31:34] » All right, >> don't take it personally. We don't

[1:31:38] Um so all of this is on private property. There is the existing seaw

[1:31:42] wall that's there now that is privately owned. It's built of um you know just

[1:31:47] stone. So we would be either reinforcing that building just immediately in front

[1:31:52] of it or or building up or elevating uh portions of it to a consistent uh

[1:31:58] elevation. That's the other thing. The consistent elevation is really important

[1:32:01] here because these are private walls that have been built, you know, hundred

[1:32:05] years ago maybe. Um, they're all at different elevations and so we want to

[1:32:10] make sure that's a nice consistent, you know, that 13 ft magic number that we've

[1:32:14] been talking about. So if we go back to the the next slide

[1:32:20] um so when we compare them um from benefits and and challenges or drawbacks

[1:32:25] the the nature-based solutions um you know the beach dune and um burm

[1:32:32] combination has um the benefit of being a nature-based solution and and not just

[1:32:38] nature-based for naturebased sake but also uh opens up for grant opportunities

[1:32:42] a lot of times that you can find opportunities through CCM and um and

[1:32:46] others that can that are more lenient towards uh greenbased solutions

[1:32:52] as far as grants uh for funding and construction. Uh the trade-off there of

[1:32:56] course is that there is an O and M uh need and after large storms we would

[1:33:01] have to go back and and place sand to reinforce that template. That is sort of

[1:33:06] the the what we'd call the design template.

[1:33:10] Um the 30-foot beach is basically the same flavor except that when as far as

[1:33:18] longevity is concerned, the wider the beach, the longer uh it's going to stay

[1:33:22] there. So erosion is sort of an everpresent pressure at the shoreline.

[1:33:26] So um you just buy you buy yourself a little bit more time.

[1:33:31] The two versions of the seaw wall are basically the same as far as what um you

[1:33:38] know the drawbacks are concerned and the benefits that they provide. The only

[1:33:41] real difference is the material cost and we find that sheep pile seaw walls are

[1:33:46] tend to be more expensive just because of the price of the steel or or if you

[1:33:49] put composite in there that might be make it more expensive.

[1:33:53] So of those four options we landed on the raised concrete seaw wall as the

[1:33:58] highest scoring solution. Um and uh let's see if we go one more slide

[1:34:04] please. Uh this is just sort of what that alignment would look like um in

[1:34:10] theory. And so these can you know this sh this could shift a little bit. We're

[1:34:13] more or less trying to follow the existing alignment of the the seaw wall

[1:34:16] that's there now. So we're trying to minimize the amount of you know

[1:34:20] construction that would need to take place. And of course uh this would

[1:34:23] require some sort of buy in from the folks that live there right. Um,

[1:34:29] so that is uh that that lead that that is zone B. Um, if we could skip to

[1:34:35] » I just have a quick question. >> Oh yeah, sure. Of course.

[1:34:37] » Because it's a uh we'll call it a public private partnership with if we um raised

[1:34:44] the seaw wall and made it one contiguous um concrete structure.

[1:34:52] Um, number one, are we allowed to do that without

[1:34:58] p without the private property owner's permission? I would assume we are not.

[1:35:03] » And if we do do it, how do we put the onus on the property owner to maintain

[1:35:09] it if we paid for it? Like, are we liable for its failure? Are we what is

[1:35:15] what are the legal ramifications of >> the town doing it?

[1:35:19] I don't know if I can speak to that intelligently. I can guess, but I don't

[1:35:22] want to put myself. >> Okay.

[1:35:26] Take could take the seaw walls >> by an agree agreeable eminent domain.

[1:35:31] » Are you offering? >> Yes, I would offer that. Um, but you

[1:35:36] have to you have to understand that some of the seaw walls are owned and then

[1:35:40] percentage of the beach is owned in front of it. So, it's not just the seaw

[1:35:43] wall, but it's also the land on the on the on the beach side. So, some of the

[1:35:48] properties are a little bit different, but

[1:35:50] » yeah, >> they're not all like that though, right?

[1:35:52] » No, they're not all like that. So, >> but a lot of most of them, I would dare

[1:35:55] to say, are. >> Yeah. Mhm.

[1:35:57] » So, that would be regardless of which approach here we would take or could

[1:36:01] take, >> they would all have some component of

[1:36:04] going on private property. >> Right.

[1:36:06] » Right. So, I I think legally that could all be worked out. I would I would think

[1:36:11] that if you're presenting something that would benefit the town by raising that

[1:36:16] and locking up water coming out onto Puritan Road and coming out at the end

[1:36:22] of Puritan Road and also by on the left side there protecting the fish house,

[1:36:27] » right? >> By sealing something in there, that

[1:36:29] would be a major benefit to that whole area.

[1:36:31] » I mean, it's mutually beneficial to all of those property owners and their

[1:36:35] property to prevent the flooding. So, I would assume that there would be sort of

[1:36:39] a quidd proquo. >> To your point about maintenance, and I

[1:36:43] can only speak from personal experience owning one of those little parcels

[1:36:46] » on the map here that it's not on a seaw wall, but right in front of it. Um, most

[1:36:51] of the folks I know over here maintain their own seaw walls. So, it would be

[1:36:55] » you'd be changing the height of the maintenance, right? But

[1:36:58] » they're already maintaining it to some to varying degrees.

[1:37:01] » Okay. >> Yeah. One of the things we've learned

[1:37:02] here though is though, you know, the smallest uh uh break or the smallest ch

[1:37:08] weak link in the chain exposes the entire town to

[1:37:11] » and and the rest of that entire community particularly to flooding.

[1:37:16] » Yeah, that's interesting.

[1:37:19] » It's I would love to understand KP's position on that.

[1:37:23] » Okay, we can look into it. Does do any of these solutions require pilings that

[1:37:29] need to go down towards bedrock just to keep them secure from the hydraulic

[1:37:35] forces of of the ocean?

[1:37:38] » Uh we haven't done that level of design here. Um I can tell you that typically

[1:37:43] these sort of projects don't there you you need to assess for scour and make

[1:37:49] sure that you're protected down to the design level of scour at the toe of the

[1:37:53] structure. or so have you picked >> scour means just for

[1:37:56] » is that's you know it's a fair question um as waves are are kind of battering a

[1:38:01] wall if you will um the where the wall meets the sand at the at the toe of the

[1:38:07] structure that has that will that elevation will lower will drop down over

[1:38:12] the course of a storm because that wave energy has to go somewhere and so what

[1:38:18] it will do instead of breaking your wall it eats out the the turbulence eats out

[1:38:22] the material at the bottom of the wall and what usually a rule of thumb we'll

[1:38:26] say is um the design wave height in incident to the wall is typically what

[1:38:32] we would expect for a depth of scour for that sort of structure. So if you say

[1:38:37] like a 3-ft wave or is it just the right number out 3ft wave then you need to

[1:38:41] make sure that your wall is at least 3 feet plus probably a little bit of bonus

[1:38:45] down below the depth of sand so that you're able to um withstand that scour.

[1:38:51] Um geotechnical engineers would take a deeper look at that uh no pun intended

[1:38:56] to uh figure out how much further down they would need to go just to make sure

[1:39:00] that the uh structure was not going to >> topple over from the dirt.

[1:39:03] » You don't think it would have to go all the way down a bedrock though?

[1:39:06] » I don't expect so. No. >> John, from your past piling experience

[1:39:11] here, that was pretty pretty deep, right?

[1:39:15] » Yeah. So the the violence the bedrock is really for vertical forces because

[1:39:20] you're you're transferring that load downward. Here we got forces coming at

[1:39:24] us horizontally. So you're more you have to have a wider foundation base. First

[1:39:29] of all, it's a concrete structure. You're not going to have to do that. But

[1:39:31] you probably have a wider footing with a keyhole in it to prevent over topping of

[1:39:35] the wall and again prevent against that scour. So, I think you'd have to worry

[1:39:39] about going bedrock because Yeah. Well, it's it's pretty variable in there, but

[1:39:42] I don't think you would get deep enough to get to that and you wouldn't have to

[1:39:45] deal with those forces. >> Okay. Thanks.

[1:39:48] » So, what you're recommending here is you're recommending making the seaw wall

[1:39:52] go down uh by the entrance there and then putting in deployable flood

[1:39:58] barriers all the way along the side. But are you also recommending increasing

[1:40:03] that the height of the seaw wall that's up against Puritan road on here?

[1:40:09] » We took a look at that actually. I think it was high enough already to meet that

[1:40:13] design flood elevation. So >> yeah, when I asked you guys this when

[1:40:17] you presented this to our stakeholder group, you had said that was like I want

[1:40:19] to say 13.2. It was like just over because visually I was thinking well how

[1:40:24] does that relate? >> And based on the conversation that we

[1:40:27] had, it was pretty similar. Great.

[1:40:32] » Uh, so let's see if we skip ahead to slide 19.

[1:40:38] Oh, perfect. Thank you very much. Um, so this gets into the uh what we've been

[1:40:43] calling the performance modeling. Um, that takes a look at Oh, sorry, previous

[1:40:49] slide.

[1:40:53] You're stealing my thunder. So what we do is we take each of these

[1:40:59] alternatives and we will run them through a computer simulation and each

[1:41:04] of these simulations is going to look at um three different scenarios uh based

[1:41:10] off of the peak water surface elevation uh during a given storm. So a a 100year

[1:41:16] or a 1% uh 2030 a 1% 2070 and then uh a 500y year or 2% 2070.

[1:41:26] Um those elevation and peak elevations off that top right corner of our slide

[1:41:31] here. You can see those kind of level off right around just under 10 ft, just

[1:41:36] under 13 ft and then uh just over 13 feet. I can't see the decimal from here,

[1:41:43] but it was I think 13.6 or something. >> Nine.

[1:41:46] » 3.9. >> Yeah,

[1:41:47] » 13.9. Thank you very much. Um

[1:41:52] the alternatives that we looked at was first um just alternative one, which is

[1:41:58] just that white alignment that you see on the map to the left. That's the area

[1:42:02] in and around the fish house and the parking lot that's there. Um,

[1:42:06] alternative two uh is the is the affformentioned uh fish house area plus

[1:42:12] the private seaw wall area along Puritan road that zone B. And then um as an

[1:42:19] alternative three uh we kept both of those and then also incorporated um and

[1:42:24] this is a little bit of foreshadowing but we incorporated um some elevated um

[1:42:30] portions of Wyatt Wales and Eisman's Beach. And what we did there because

[1:42:34] it's it was sort of the design of anything like that was outside of our

[1:42:38] scope. We just basically raised that portion of those roads up to I think 17

[1:42:43] ft something just large enough that would everything gets blocked.

[1:42:47] » So you raise the roads. >> Yes. And numerically we raised the

[1:42:52] roads. Yes. But it's not something that is part of we're not we're not proposing

[1:42:56] anything. I'm just wanted to actually you'll see it on our next slide. I

[1:43:00] should I probably should have led with that. If you go to the next slide,

[1:43:06] uh we see the results of our uh modeling for each of those different scenarios.

[1:43:12] Um so starting at the top left, we have the existing condition and this is the

[1:43:17] peak water surface elevation that we're showing or I guess the peak water depth

[1:43:22] that we're showing. And you those white arrows are indicating where the water is

[1:43:26] coming from. They're coming from over um Fisherman's Beach and then of course

[1:43:30] over um Cassidy Park to the right there and then even more so or just as much I

[1:43:36] should say at Wales and Isman. Um when we do this for the other alternatives uh

[1:43:44] one and two uh the results are virtually the same. So if we're looking at this

[1:43:48] really one of these things is not like the other, right? And then what we'll

[1:43:52] see here at alternative three, um there virtually is no flooding. And what this

[1:43:58] tells us here is that we can we can block Fisherman's Beach through the

[1:44:04] raising of private seaw walls through fortification of Fish House. Um but

[1:44:09] there is an alternative flood path and that is over Wales and Eisman's Beach

[1:44:14] and that's and that's basically the um you know that portion of Puritan Road

[1:44:19] that's a little bit lower. These are extreme events. This is the 20 uh 20

[1:44:26] » 70 >> Thank you. 2070 100year event. This is

[1:44:30] the one that showed really the distinction between these. What's the

[1:44:33] current height of the uh flood walls along Puritan Road behind Eisman's and

[1:44:39] Wales? >> Along P along Wales and Eisman

[1:44:43] » the green that you added for good measure.

[1:44:46] » Yeah. Uh those are close to I want to say 11 ft or so. There's no there's no

[1:44:53] walls there, right? It's just it's the road. So we didn't include any wall.

[1:44:57] » No, there's a wall seaw wall. >> Oh, okay. So

[1:44:59] » all the way across the coast there. So >> Okay. So that's

[1:45:03] » steps >> go up.

[1:45:05] » But there are some lowlying areas for sure.

[1:45:06] » The lowlying areas. >> Yeah. The grass, the drive that comes

[1:45:10] into it. But >> so why why make that area 17 versus 13

[1:45:16] when we were talking about 13 the whole time?

[1:45:19] It was just we wanted to just separate it from the design elements of of the

[1:45:25] fisherman's beach study and just make it something that was just a full blockage

[1:45:32] of um water at that area. And and the reason and the reason that it could be

[1:45:38] something different over there is because whales and eyesmans is more

[1:45:41] exposed to the open ocean and so 13 ft would probably be a little bit uh low

[1:45:47] over on that side. >> Is there an elevation change?

[1:45:50] » Is I guess um can we could you guys show us an alt three which has it at 13 ft?

[1:45:58] » Why? Like >> I just I just wonder how cuz you know

[1:46:02] we've been talking about 13 and if I mean to Wayne's point not to belabor

[1:46:06] Wayne's point but he was saying why not higher.

[1:46:10] » I think they >> but then you went higher.

[1:46:12] » Isn't all two showing the 13T to answer your question? I

[1:46:16] » No, it is. But but if you look Okay. So So alt one is just the fisherman's

[1:46:22] parking lot. Alt two includes Puritan Road and the you know in the um existing

[1:46:28] seaw wall along Puritin road but alt three includes 17 ft along Eisman's and

[1:46:34] Wales. >> Right. And is that the elevation that

[1:46:36] you found that you needed to totally block

[1:46:39] » that? We use 17 because you were just trying to block it off.

[1:46:42] » 17 was just a conservative estimate. It could have just been it could have been

[1:46:46] just as much at 13 and a half or something. And we just wanted we didn't

[1:46:50] want to spend budget figuring out what that design elevation would be over

[1:46:54] there because we just wanted to assess the viability of oils and eyesman as an

[1:46:58] alternative flood path. >> Yeah.

[1:47:00] » Got it. So it's slightly outside of the scope, right?

[1:47:03] » Yeah. >> Yeah. I get I get that it's outside the

[1:47:04] scope, but I guess I'm trying to disprove Wayne's point that it shouldn't

[1:47:07] be 17 ft everywhere. And you maybe just helped his argument by saying, "Oh, if

[1:47:12] we did 17 ft here, you'd block this path also and then you have no color change

[1:47:16] because there's essentially no flooding because we've sort of bur made a barrier

[1:47:21] for that whole C area." So, I'm just curious what it looks like if that area

[1:47:24] we're only 13, >> you know, and then why not?

[1:47:28] » So, it's a Yeah. So it's a little bit um uh misleading the way the way that we've

[1:47:34] labeled this is we have these white arrows are showing the direction the the

[1:47:39] directionality of the flow. Uh the while the results of these other three

[1:47:45] colorful quadrants look very similar because they end up with the same or

[1:47:49] similar peak water surface elevation >> um ultimately the the way that those

[1:47:54] portions of the town get wet are very different. Mhm.

[1:47:58] » So in alternative one uh for example where we have um just the fish house

[1:48:08] protected, we still see water coming up and over uh those homes adjacent to uh

[1:48:13] Puritan Road behind Fisherman's Beach. Um which is kind of what those white

[1:48:17] arrows are showing at Fisherman's. If we look at alternative uh two,

[1:48:24] um those areas still get wet, but that it's because water has actually come

[1:48:29] through Wales and Eisman's to the south and has kind of worked its way up

[1:48:33] Humphrey Street and back. So B totally get it. So basically what you're saying

[1:48:37] is that if we don't do anything in Wales and Eisman, the rest of it is it doesn't

[1:48:41] make a difference if we do anything else. We need to address Wales and

[1:48:43] Eisman regardless if it's 13 ft, 17 ft, whatever it is, that study needs to come

[1:48:48] next. >> That's correct. Richmond is then just

[1:48:49] going to flag whales. >> That's correct. During during this

[1:48:52] during this extreme event which is a 1% 2070 storm. Yes.

[1:48:57] » And this is a 1% where previously we were designing to the point 2 the 500

[1:49:01] year >> the even more.

[1:49:04] » So can we see a performance model of that?

[1:49:09] » Wait. >> So I think it's inside the scope of what

[1:49:12] we asked them to do here. No, but I mean we we planned for

[1:49:17] this all the plans prior talk about this event that we're planning for, but then

[1:49:24] we modeled to a worse event. >> No, this is actually more likely. This

[1:49:27] 100year storm is more likely 1% chance rather than 0.2%.

[1:49:31] » Got it. I thought it was flipped. Sorry. >> Okay.

[1:49:34] » And just to clarify, >> probabilities are worse in this case.

[1:49:37] » Yeah. >> Yes.

[1:49:39] » In the last scenario, it's still 13 ft along fish in speech. Yeah.

[1:49:44] » Right. >> Thank you.

[1:49:45] » Yes. >> Yes. Y

[1:49:47] » sorry. Just want to make sure that's a good clarification.

[1:49:51] » Um so with that, uh

[1:49:54] » so we can't save the pump house without doing the entire road is what you're

[1:49:58] saying. So Mary Ellen's point originally is while it was not within the scope of

[1:50:03] your ask which I understand if we don't basically

[1:50:11] water will always find a path unless we block it. So if we don't block it all

[1:50:16] » we're probably not going to have any of those assets. The original study, the

[1:50:20] original study that was done was very clear where our most vulnerable place is

[1:50:26] in the section of uh not the fish, not not Fert, not the fish house, but over

[1:50:32] by >> Philips Park,

[1:50:33] » Wales and Phillips. That's our most vulnerable area. So, in order for us to

[1:50:38] protect our most vulnerable area and plus some, we have to do the whole

[1:50:42] corridor, >> right? I would I would think that's the

[1:50:46] the update to this to this study. >> I guess I I would say you can protect

[1:50:52] the pump station as a single building using temporary flood barriers. You

[1:50:56] don't you know like if that was the only asset you were concerned about.

[1:51:00] » You could do that pretty easily with temporary flood barriers. There's not a

[1:51:04] lot of flood pathways into that building. Um really the charter for this

[1:51:09] whole project was to look comprehensively at the coastline um and

[1:51:12] like what you know looking for a a comprehensive approach to protecting

[1:51:17] everything right so that's kind of what this report is is doing but you can

[1:51:20] absolutely you know protect one asset separately through you know temporary

[1:51:24] mechanisms >> what what was the risk assessment over

[1:51:27] as you get east along right along Phillips Preston even

[1:51:33] towards the Marblehead line >> what was the I know that's a little bit

[1:51:37] higher in elevation. Is that is that what was that risk assessment lower

[1:51:41] because that elevation is above 13 ft? I think the um there was

[1:51:47] fewer assets town municipal owned assets I think in those in the area. Um Palmer

[1:51:52] Pond is a pretty big percentage of the flood area on Philips Beach. Um but I

[1:51:57] think that first graphic kind of showed the the extent and depth um page one.

[1:52:02] Yeah, >> there are some dark green areas here

[1:52:07] » which is uh >> Oh, thank you. Yes,

[1:52:10] » by Philip Speech right there. >> Yep.

[1:52:14] » Keep going backwards if you're Yeah, that one. Thank you.

[1:52:21] » Okay. Well, this is a lot to digest. Mhm.

[1:52:24] » One of one of the things in common that I see throughout here, and it goes back

[1:52:27] to my original observation at the beginning of your presentation, was the

[1:52:31] fish house remains in the flood zone. >> Mhm.

[1:52:34] » As opposed to being the option number one, which was

[1:52:39] building the structure on the beach side and then locking it up with the

[1:52:43] temporary barriers, thus keeping the fish house out of the flood zone.

[1:52:51] Does that resonate with anybody or >> using flood zone as in protected area?

[1:52:56] » No, as in like what's going to be flooded.

[1:52:59] » So there's the fish the fish house is sitting as it kind of cuts off, right?

[1:53:03] The fish house is not protected unless you mitigate what you were

[1:53:08] talking about before, which is a separate zone around the fish house

[1:53:11] itself as opposed to being inclusive along the beach line with,

[1:53:17] you know, openings that can be temporarily closed off through

[1:53:20] mitigation or not barrier devices. So, you're saying like take that blue

[1:53:25] line, bring it to the actual uh front of the parking, carry it all the way across

[1:53:30] to the front of the fish house and actually close it off and then bring it

[1:53:34] back up alongside to the private parcels.

[1:53:36] » Right. We're like cutting. >> So, if you if you just go take the seaw

[1:53:40] wall and go, are you saying take the seaw wall?

[1:53:43] » Take the black line at the bottom. Take the blue and pull it forward. Yeah. Pull

[1:53:47] it forward. Whichever. >> Right. Which was that was an option. It

[1:53:49] was alternate one but but it was frowned against because of I don't know if it

[1:53:54] was the cost or the >> I think John had mentioned there was

[1:53:56] ongoing cost of maintenance that was more significant

[1:54:02] » but you you you you have >> you solve the problem

[1:54:05] » you sol you sol it's more of a solvable problem

[1:54:07] » a full problem and not just pieces of it >> kind of let me kind of take this I think

[1:54:14] to the next step if we did raise seaw wall along the beach understanding the

[1:54:18] higher maintenance cost, >> right?

[1:54:20] » Does that minimize, limit, alternate the expense of the fish fish house specific?

[1:54:27] » This is what I was trying to ask originally.

[1:54:30] » Yeah. >> Um so if you

[1:54:32] » or eliminate them, >> if you did that, the the amount of

[1:54:35] temporary barriers you need in front of the fish house would be smaller than if

[1:54:38] you did a perimeter back to um Humphrey Street,

[1:54:42] » right? Um, I think John's point was because of the location, um, being sure

[1:54:49] because sandashing back, um, installing those temporary barriers in a sealed way

[1:54:53] would be more difficult at the beachfront, which is why we were leaning

[1:54:56] towards the Humphrey Street alignment. >> Um, but I do see your point.

[1:55:00] » To be fair, what's any more different about the difficulty of that than it is

[1:55:04] along the other quarter mile of stretch along Puritan Road and even on Eisman's

[1:55:10] Eisman? Maybe that's a let's just stick stick on the Puritan road area. What's

[1:55:14] any different than that other than you have an existing seaw wall there already

[1:55:18] that you would be building upon or you would

[1:55:20] » as we discussed minutes ago you'd be creating whatever you needed to create.

[1:55:24] This is specifically for the deployable barriers.

[1:55:27] » So you're not using the temporary deployable barriers. You're building

[1:55:30] seaw wall there. So it's a little so you're building a more permanent

[1:55:33] structure not meant to be temporarily removed and that's

[1:55:36] » fair installed. So there'd be some more reliability to that permanent structure.

[1:55:39] » Great. Yeah. >> Yeah. So the Puritan road that was all

[1:55:43] permanent. >> So the real

[1:55:47] » alternative, right, Wayne's suggestion of if the seaw wall is on the beach side

[1:55:52] and then the temporary barriers were closer to where the pier stands now on

[1:55:56] the seawward side of the fish house. The con for that is there's more significant

[1:56:01] maintenance concerns and upkeep in terms of cost and operations, but the efficacy

[1:56:06] is similar. >> Yep. You'd have to ahead of installing

[1:56:09] those, you'd have to make sure that they're clear of stick sand. Um because

[1:56:14] those have to be affixed to a foundation.

[1:56:18] » Oh, got it. Okay. >> So, but there's less

[1:56:21] » deployable, but you can't >> go ahead.

[1:56:23] » Sorry. Deployable, you can't just put them anywhere. You actually do install

[1:56:26] like a prefab foundation that they're attached to and bolted in. So, uh on the

[1:56:32] asphalt side, it's obviously much easier to keep that seal. Whereas if you're on

[1:56:35] the beach side, traffic going over it, you're going to get sanded on that

[1:56:38] rubber all the time. So it's just long-term effectiveness and and facility

[1:56:43] of deploying it. But it is something we can continue to look at. Um, you know,

[1:56:47] if that's if that's the way the town wants to go.

[1:56:50] » That explanation is really helpful. Thank you.

[1:56:52] » The efficacy is not the same in that day-to-day operation,

[1:56:56] » right? >> Yeah. I want to be very clear because

[1:56:58] it's requiring expertise that we may or may not have at the time of that storm.

[1:57:04] Makes sense.

[1:57:07] » Okay. So, what's some next steps here, Nick, for this?

[1:57:12] » We are waiting for the final report. >> Okay.

[1:57:16] » Yep. So, the final report um I think we provided to Marcy. I think she's done it

[1:57:23] on >> Marcy.

[1:57:27] » How long did it take to do this report? I was going to say we we've received

[1:57:30] comments from Martha Schmidt's committee and if there's any other comments from

[1:57:35] other committees like we're kind of holding to see if there's any more

[1:57:38] comments coming in from you know DBW and um Harbor Waterfront that kind of stuff.

[1:57:42] So um I think they're passing comments to Mars you shall pass them to us. So um

[1:57:47] anything that comes out of that we'll update the report. So it isn't it's an

[1:57:51] like a pretty advanced draft. Um, so, so that's once we address or get receive

[1:57:56] comments and address them all, then we'll finalize it.

[1:57:59] » Is this is this up on the website in a very easily findable place?

[1:58:05] » No, because it's not in a final form. >> No, the draft. Yeah.

[1:58:08] » No, >> no, it's it's not complete. So, it would

[1:58:11] not yet be released. >> So, if we want public comment, why would

[1:58:14] we not It doesn't matter. Why would we not put it up in state explicitly draft

[1:58:18] looking for public comment? >> We We haven't invited public comment

[1:58:22] yet. No, >> we've invited commentary from

[1:58:25] committees, stakeholder stakeholder committees.

[1:58:29] » Yeah. >> But I but I think that they started the

[1:58:31] presentation to say that what this whole process was lacking was public input.

[1:58:36] But that was not part of the scope by which we could afford to hire them for

[1:58:41] this process. So we need to finalize a draft and then engage public comment

[1:58:49] » for us to engage >> for us to engage public comment outside

[1:58:51] of Kleinfelder and so that we can do something with this information.

[1:58:57] » And what this will inform is any further MVP grants or other CCM or anyone else

[1:59:02] that might make available funds to municipalities to go towards

[1:59:07] implementation. These are all things that are not built into our capital

[1:59:09] plan. Coastal zone management is CZM. I apologize. And then

[1:59:14] » No, I know >> MVP. I didn't know if you knew.

[1:59:15] » No, actually we were just talking about at the CARK meeting um climate action

[1:59:18] meeting this week which was looking at the uh

[1:59:21] » vulnerability >> MVP and CZM grants were being combined

[1:59:25] » into a one-stop shop that actually there's a on September 15th. There's a

[1:59:29] webinar that the group is >> Yeah, I think EA actually has all their

[1:59:32] grants in a one-stop shop. >> Yeah, it's not just them. So,

[1:59:36] » but that's a next step type of thing. I I I'd still like to see um draft or

[1:59:40] otherwise I'm not saying necessarily that uh the select board has to uh

[1:59:44] engage in public comment, right? That's a separate story, but um certainly um

[1:59:49] there can be a form for public comment to the draft. Um and those public

[1:59:53] comments can be possibly included if necessary into the final report.

[2:00:00] I I don't I don't see why that's necessarily a bad idea. Yes, I I agree

[2:00:03] that we could have public hearings in the future for public comment. Of

[2:00:07] course, I I welcome that, but um I I still don't see why uh a draft report

[2:00:12] shouldn't be available to anyone who requests it.

[2:00:16] It's a draft. There may be things that uh aren't seen, aren't known uh by

[2:00:21] people in the community. Uh, and if we don't do that, at least I'd like to see

[2:00:26] um the two committees that have the most fundamental uh stake in this, which

[2:00:30] would be Harbor Waterfront and Climate Action, to have a vote amongst them to

[2:00:34] advise us as advisory committees to advise us uh whether or not this report

[2:00:38] is complete before we sign off on it. >> My my committee, Harvard Waterfront, has

[2:00:43] it. So, >> yeah.

[2:00:46] So, we've been working on this for how long are we? It's three years now. Does

[2:00:50] anybody know? Do you know, Nick? Do you know?

[2:00:53] » I don't. >> He's the least likely here.

[2:00:56] » It was two It was two grant cycles ago that we were unsuccessful. So, um, so

[2:01:01] probably two years, I think. >> Well, it was, uh, I think it was the

[2:01:07] the, um, it was around when Doug Thompson had his magic markers and was

[2:01:12] going to the board because we had to identify ARPA money.

[2:01:14] » ARPA money. >> Is that what we we used ARPA money?

[2:01:17] » We did. We did use ARPA money. Yeah. So I'm saying we're over two and a half

[2:01:20] years. >> We It's been some time.

[2:01:22] » So the reason I'm asking that is this is it's been a long process and I just want

[2:01:26] to know what's our target date to get something going here so that we can be

[2:01:30] applying for some of these grants because there is new money going in for

[2:01:35] grants. I think um I know I went to a a meeting with Doug

[2:01:41] and several people at the Fish House and we were talking to the chair of one of

[2:01:47] the larger committees. >> Who was it?

[2:01:50] » Seport economic. >> No, it wasn't Seport Economic. It was um

[2:01:56] somebody else. >> So, um

[2:01:58] » just the bottom line is there's more money available now. Um I know Governor

[2:02:03] Healey was putting more money towards this this endeavor. So, I what what I

[2:02:08] want to find out is when's the date? What's our date of getting this

[2:02:11] completed and and uh being able to apply for this these monies? I guess I just

[2:02:17] have two quick on Wayne's public feedback. Uh

[2:02:22] I I caution that we not that Kleinfelder can't be wrong or that public can't give

[2:02:29] input, but I don't wish the public to sway

[2:02:34] necessarily scientific recommendation.

[2:02:38] There's a there's a community input part of it which I understand that you know

[2:02:42] they've given a certain level based on the way the way that they're waiting

[2:02:45] things and if we choose to move that weighted average to something else

[2:02:50] because of community input that's up to the community and I have no problem

[2:02:55] doing that. I just don't want to necessarily

[2:02:58] sway this sway that in this process. But I do want

[2:03:03] to caution that we don't do what we did with the peer and go straight to get

[2:03:08] funding that the community doesn't necessarily wholeheartedly support or

[2:03:13] understand. And I I want to action things that we

[2:03:18] as a community feel will come to fruition because I fear, you know, going

[2:03:22] back to multiple entities and asking for funds and them getting us getting funds

[2:03:28] and then not not being able to sort of really see something to its finalization

[2:03:32] hurts us in the end for getting funds in the future. So I want to make sure that

[2:03:36] what we ask for we're going to do. Um so that's just my two cents.

[2:03:43] But this isn't even asking us to do anything.

[2:03:45] » No, we're just getting >> I I just I just I was just cautioning

[2:03:48] going out to get grant funding to do something when we don't really have a

[2:03:53] path forward about what we are going to do. That's the part that I

[2:03:56] » So in terms of delivering the final report, you're waiting our our feedback

[2:03:59] from our appointed advisory committees, right? So that's something that Marzy

[2:04:04] and I can work with as >> the representatives to make sure we get

[2:04:08] that back to then to Mary Ellen's point to get the final.

[2:04:11] » Well, those are advisory committees. So those advisory committees should be

[2:04:16] advising the select board. Shouldn't it be the select the select board should be

[2:04:19] the ones off, you know, okaying the final report, not these advisory

[2:04:23] committees, >> right? I'm not sure that these advisory

[2:04:25] committees should have direct um I don't want to say influence or real contact

[2:04:29] with Kleinfelder who's providing us with the science and the data. I'm not sure

[2:04:34] I'm understanding how the two coingle or why they would. Right. Because to Mary

[2:04:38] Ellen's point, they're advisory committees to us.

[2:04:41] » Sure. >> Right. And it's just Right.

[2:04:43] » So I don't know what the flow of information is back and forth between

[2:04:46] Kleinfelder and these committees, but I don't think our committee should be

[2:04:49] actively influencing or involved with their report. Right. I I want to see the

[2:04:54] scientific facts that tell us what we need to do

[2:04:57] » from a Kleinfelder perspective. >> There's more than scientific fact here.

[2:05:00] There's evaluation and analysis based upon priorities in this report that is

[2:05:04] more that it actually leads to effective based solutions. So I do think that

[2:05:10] these committees have um a lot of consideration considering that they

[2:05:15] affect the direct the direct impact to to everything that

[2:05:22] these committees study on a daily basis on a on a regular basis.

[2:05:26] » But these committees act as a as to Mary Ellen's point advisories to the select

[2:05:31] board. >> Should we not use them as advisories?

[2:05:33] » No. So they should be advising advising the same thing. We just want to make

[2:05:39] sure we're all working in 10, right? >> We're just working together here, not on

[2:05:43] separate teams. >> Right. I think I think one question I

[2:05:45] don't want to see advisory committees just working with theel Kleinfelder and

[2:05:50] the I don't want to just say Kleinfelder when you have Woods, but you know

[2:05:54] influence the outcome of the report, right? That's not what their their

[2:05:57] advice should be coming here, >> right?

[2:05:59] » So, do you with all of that in mind because I do think this is four white

[2:06:03] arrows all pointing at the same same thing. Yeah. like do you two want to

[2:06:07] talk to your committees and you can >> share something with the board in the

[2:06:11] first meeting in October to give you time to get something

[2:06:14] » on the calendar with each of them or >> does that should be a recommendation

[2:06:19] right so my committee um our next meeting we're taking up discussion of

[2:06:23] the report and the findings >> great okay

[2:06:25] » perfect and climate action had already done it

[2:06:27] » to >> you know if there's anything that they

[2:06:29] want to bring forward to the select board then

[2:06:31] » I will do that but >> great

[2:06:33] » that is what we're doing >> and I have feedback back from Martha

[2:06:37] from client action with that includes from most of the committee individual

[2:06:41] inputs. >> Okay. So then I can synthesize or bring

[2:06:45] together all the feedback that you two gather and you can work with Marzy and I

[2:06:49] directly to get it >> so that you all can move to a final

[2:06:53] final as opposed to a final draft. >> Yep. Yeah, sounds good.

[2:06:56] » I just have one quick question on the um the barrier what do you call those

[2:07:00] barrier things? The >> flood barriers

[2:07:02] » um >> deployable

[2:07:03] » temporary barriers. How long have they been in the market? How long have they

[2:07:07] been used? And how effective are they? >> You know, over how about in Europe?

[2:07:16] » Um, so we moved the mic. Oh,

[2:07:22] » so the barriers that come to mind I think are um is it Aquagate? Aquagate.

[2:07:27] Aqua Fence. Thank you very much. >> Fence.

[2:07:30] » Thanks, John. Yeah, Aquafence is a popular um brand that's very well

[2:07:35] established in the United States as well as Europe.

[2:07:37] » How long have they been in the market? >> I don't know off the top of my head. I

[2:07:41] would have to go to their website. >> What are they called?

[2:07:43] » Aqua fence. >> Google it.

[2:07:45] » Um I do know that there >> I do know that they're used around the

[2:07:50] country um including um you know valuable assets like hospitals um and

[2:07:57] you know uh you know public buildings. So it's not some it's not like a

[2:08:01] one-off. I think they use they deploy them in Boston at um the aquarium stop.

[2:08:06] » Yeah. >> For the W for the MBTA.

[2:08:09] » Okay. Yeah. At the MBTA station there at the top of the

[2:08:12] » Yeah, the aquarium. >> Pictures in the report.

[2:08:15] » They deploy them there. I think Massport deploys them around some of their

[2:08:18] facilities. >> Interesting.

[2:08:22] » They first deployed in 2008 at Mount Vernon.

[2:08:26] » Oh, that's an important asset, Mariel. Oh, sorry. Not that was not the first

[2:08:31] deployment. That was a notable deployment.

[2:08:34] » Did you say a notable deployment? >> A notable deployment.

[2:08:36] » No, Vernon. >> They're founded 99.

[2:08:40] » Yeah. >> Oh, thank you. Yeah. And I believe, you

[2:08:43] know, there are different companies. Aquafen, Aqua Gator is one of them. Um,

[2:08:48] but a lot of them they'll fold up and they, you know, you can stow them and

[2:08:51] then they you pull them out and then you can deploy them. And so it's something

[2:08:54] that's like a minimum footprint when you're not using it is the idea.

[2:08:59] » Okay. >> And then they linked what I think they

[2:09:02] linked together. >> I think we estimated for the fish house

[2:09:06] um it would be about 4 hours to deploy >> if you did a full perimeter.

[2:09:11] » That's a long time. >> It's long, but it'd be relatively

[2:09:15] infrequent events. >> And that was based upon the hump the the

[2:09:20] street >> all the way around the house. all the

[2:09:23] way around. >> That was the maximum of

[2:09:26] » Well, that's good to know. >> Based on a two person team, so

[2:09:29] » Oh, Chino's got way more than two people.

[2:09:33] » Gino can do it faster. >> Okay,

[2:09:36] » great. >> So, we have next steps.

[2:09:38] » Next step is you guys are going to give some feedback. We're going to talk about

[2:09:41] this again in October and Kleinfelder can go home.

[2:09:45] I I would just urge um if staff Marzy and Nick if possible to on like I said

[2:09:51] September 15th 11 a.m. there's the environmental climate onetop grant

[2:09:54] program that was the merging of the um of the CCM and MVP programs together. Um

[2:10:02] you can maybe that's helpful because that's our next steps is for future

[2:10:07] grant programming.

[2:10:11] » Okay. >> Thank you John. the um

[2:10:13] » Thank you very very much. >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night.

[2:10:17] » Thank you everyone. >> All right, we're gonna move on to select

[2:10:21] board. Oh, should we go back to the charter commission?

[2:10:24] » Yeah, >> let's go back to charter.

[2:10:26] » Oh, yeah. >> Let's go do that. Oh, yeah. Um, one just

[2:10:30] quick takeaway from this particular conversation, Nick, is if you could work

[2:10:35] a little bit more in concert getting this information

[2:10:39] um, to us before it goes out to >> the public.

[2:10:44] » The public. Um, which is not your fault, but some other committees had it in

[2:10:48] advance and then it went out in the papers and we all heard about it. So,

[2:10:51] um, would be great if those advisory committees could advise us before they

[2:10:56] advise the tides or the item. That would be helpful. No offense.

[2:11:03] Um,

[2:11:06] all right. Moving back to the charter review update, which

[2:11:10] » you have to remember the item attends all these meetings.

[2:11:12] » The item is present for those who don't.

[2:11:17] » Um, okay. So, we were talking back to the committee conversation.

[2:11:23] » Um, >> I think Marielen had

[2:11:25] » Mary Ellen wanted to open up for discussion post.

[2:11:29] » So, my question is um did a did we ever get the information from David David on

[2:11:36] on what all the committees were recommending for charter review?

[2:11:39] » I do not yet have that. >> I had asked

[2:11:43] » we thought it might be with D. >> Diane Diane has it. We've been talking

[2:11:47] about this for a while, but has anybody >> Well, I'm not to answer that.

[2:11:49] » We do not have them right now. No, that's to answer your question. We know

[2:11:52] where they may be, but no, we do not have them.

[2:11:55] » Okay. So, the last time we had a charter review, we had three people.

[2:11:59] » Correct. That's my understanding. Three people. Peter Spelios,

[2:12:03] Jeff Beerman, and Mary, who Mary's named after, Mary, the first female commodor

[2:12:11] of the Swamp Scott. So, we had three people. They went over at public

[2:12:15] meetings. Um, I'm just wondering I I think there's a couple things here. Is

[2:12:21] are we looking at making this bigger than what it needs to be? Do we really

[2:12:25] need to have five or seven people? Can we just go with three people? Um, if

[2:12:30] we've already done the research two years ago on what each committee feels

[2:12:35] that needs to be adjusted within the charter of under their purview, are we

[2:12:40] already partially there? I mean, I've brought it up twice. My biggest concern

[2:12:46] on the charter, other than, you know, tweaking some of the little stuff that's

[2:12:50] not really relevant. Um, but my biggest concern is that the moderator chooses

[2:12:56] the finance committee and the capital improvement committee. And I

[2:13:02] think that that to me is something that needs to be addressed um

[2:13:08] you know very quickly and not wait for several years to address it. I mean as

[2:13:14] of right now we have a moderator who is a moderator is on the capital

[2:13:19] improvement committee and is the chairman of that committee. And I don't

[2:13:24] think that's good governance. And I think the number one goal here is to

[2:13:27] make sure we have good governance and we're following, you know, following a

[2:13:31] charter. So I think my my point here is I don't want to make this long and drawn

[2:13:37] out if we've already done a good amount of the work and we already have a decent

[2:13:41] charter. So just want to share my opinion on this because I want to get to

[2:13:45] making some changes in the charter sooner rather than later. So is there

[2:13:50] anything else in that comes to the forefront that anybody else is really

[2:13:55] dug in looking to see in terms of changes to the charter? Is there

[2:13:59] anything else that comes to mind? We wouldn't know other than seeing the

[2:14:03] minute seeing the information that David you know has cor collected. I know that

[2:14:08] from the committees that I was a liazison to um I know the board of

[2:14:12] assessors had a couple little tweaks um and that was it. No other committee had

[2:14:17] anything big. Everybody was pretty >> Did you all engage the community in that

[2:14:20] process as well? >> No,

[2:14:22] » no, >> no. I don't think No, no,

[2:14:24] » no. We just we had just opened sort of the conversation with we should do this.

[2:14:29] Let's reach out to committees and see if they have feedback first, collect it,

[2:14:34] synthesize it, and then go out to public comment.

[2:14:38] » How long ago was that? >> David was chair. So,

[2:14:41] » yeah. So, three two or three almost three years ago.

[2:14:44] » Yeah. And I would I guess while I hear your point, imagine this sport's

[2:14:49] comments three years ago, they're likely today going to change

[2:14:53] because boards change, opinions change, people in charge change, ideology

[2:14:57] changes, philosophy changes. So I while I agree that there's an urgency maybe

[2:15:02] for some things and that doesn't mean we can't propose a charter change as the

[2:15:08] board, can we not? >> Sure.

[2:15:11] » So yeah, we can. I mean we just it's a town meeting warrant article and so we

[2:15:16] could engage this fully comprehensive process now but still suggest a warrant

[2:15:23] article to ch to and say that we >> believe in the sake of good governance

[2:15:28] that that be needs to happen outside of this other process.

[2:15:32] » It is an option. >> So is it fair to say from a process

[2:15:35] perspective we could appoint a local charter review committee to go do their

[2:15:40] thing and they would come advise the select board. we would adopt it or

[2:15:43] change it or whatever before it would go on to the next step in the process.

[2:15:46] » Yes. Yes. >> Previously, historically in Swanson

[2:15:49] Scott, that has been done with an article at town meeting

[2:15:52] » to create that review committee. >> So the first So first you go to town

[2:15:57] meeting to get the committee created. >> Correct.

[2:15:59] » Then you panel the committee. You seat the committee and then you I mean to

[2:16:04] Mary Ellen's point that would take years.

[2:16:05] » I don't think I don't think the charter says

[2:16:09] » I'm not saying I didn't say the charter. historically after talking to someone

[2:16:13] who had drafted the charter. >> Yeah. So

[2:16:16] » he has it under good advisement. >> But is there a mechanism to

[2:16:19] » We don't have to do that to keep >> We absolutely don't. You're absolutely

[2:16:22] right. >> Right.

[2:16:23] » Okay. >> Yeah. I think Danielle, we can we can we

[2:16:26] can if we all agree that something is important enough we can put forth a

[2:16:30] warrant article and ask town meeting to consider the change as we deem it

[2:16:35] necessary. Do we have a legal opinion about the role of moderator as chair,

[2:16:39] moderator and committee member? Have we sol we asked for?

[2:16:43] » We did right after he was elected and >> okay and they have said that's all

[2:16:47] » there's not a conflict of interest. >> Okay.

[2:16:48] » It's not a it's not against any other >> no statute

[2:16:53] » any statute there's no statute there. So to the presentation you had here Nick

[2:16:57] with the anticipated timeline of this getting started this fall and then by

[2:17:03] the end of the summer we would probably have

[2:17:06] » the idea with this timeline would be next a year from this December we were

[2:17:10] coming to town meeting with changes. >> Okay so

[2:17:13] » unless we felt strongly about >> 15 months from now.

[2:17:16] » Does this group think that that's too far?

[2:17:19] » Yeah. I mean not not for every change. I think I think Yeah. Well, you are the

[2:17:25] chair. >> I think between Danielle, Maryanne, and

[2:17:27] I, I think that's what we were sort of hinting at that it feels

[2:17:31] » like a long time. Am I wrong? >> It does feel like a long time. But I

[2:17:34] mean, I think there are some other things that I'd like to see evaluated,

[2:17:37] at least studied in the charter, which is how our board of health is set up um

[2:17:42] and what they have in terms of influence on their own director. That that's the

[2:17:50] test case for why I said in three years I think committees have changed because

[2:17:54] three years ago the board of health might have had

[2:17:56] » no comment but maybe they might have comment now there are different set of

[2:18:00] folks who might have different thoughts and feelings. So

[2:18:03] » okay so one area you'd like to see >> um

[2:18:06] » you have other thoughts. Yeah, there was another thing I was

[2:18:09] » one thing that Marzy has brought up in the past is the composition of the

[2:18:12] planning board >> to for site plan special permit to be

[2:18:16] granted which almost every project in town needs. You need four out of five

[2:18:19] members. >> Oftent times over my last two years as

[2:18:22] chair we had one if not more than that members that were conflicted due to

[2:18:27] proximity >> since we're a tiny little town. Um so

[2:18:30] the idea was brought up do we can we explore the idea of alternates that's

[2:18:34] permissible under state law for some boards planning being depending on the

[2:18:39] town planning being one of them. So long story short looking at the composition

[2:18:42] of the planning board for that reality. >> So that's another change. So

[2:18:46] » so why can't we can we do both simultaneously?

[2:18:49] » Yes we can. >> Does that satisfy you?

[2:18:51] » Oh yeah. >> Okay. I just I don't really see a need

[2:18:54] to go to town meeting to ask to approve a a committee. We could we just approve

[2:19:00] a committee ourselves. >> Well, could we appoint a committee in

[2:19:04] the next couple of months and then try and just

[2:19:07] » Yes. >> We've already advertised like, hey,

[2:19:09] we're getting ready for this. Well, instead of going to town meeting in

[2:19:12] December of 2027, May of 2027, or is that time to

[2:19:17] » I don't think that we could reasonably >> go through a process that looks at

[2:19:20] things that get raised by the community >> outside of this targeted

[2:19:24] » That's fair >> initial effort. I think that would be

[2:19:28] too quick. >> Okay.

[2:19:31] » This isn't something we want to rush. It's what actually the town that's how

[2:19:35] we operate. >> So, I think there's a utility to having

[2:19:39] a diverse group appointed to review it and taking time to review it and

[2:19:43] engaging the public in that review >> if there's a true desire to do it right.

[2:19:47] If if there really is, you know, the feeling that the the charter needs um

[2:19:53] significant revamping, edits, correction, whatever, but if it's really

[2:19:57] a standalone issue that, you know, some of us have concern over the moderator

[2:20:02] and or you know the >> we have moderator, planning board, board

[2:20:05] of health, but those are all >> right.

[2:20:07] » And I'm not saying that's the board. I'm not saying on behalf of the planning

[2:20:10] board that was a concern brought up. So they should Yeah. You know, it's

[2:20:13] something that should be explored. Like I'm sure you're

[2:20:14] » I just think like I think there's a smaller issue. It's not a big one, but

[2:20:18] you know, standing committees versus advisory committees. We've had since the

[2:20:22] last charter update like two or three other committees that have been

[2:20:24] regularly meeting. I'm not saying that that's I would I would never insist to

[2:20:29] do a charter review because of that, but it's one of those things that can be

[2:20:33] » I don't think we should look at this as something that is a bad thing to be

[2:20:37] doing. It's a best practice. >> It's been 10 years since the community

[2:20:40] has looked at it as a group. >> So whether it's you all

[2:20:44] » appointed saying not to do it. >> Well, no. He just said I would never say

[2:20:49] this is a reason to do it. I'm saying the the the fact that we've come up with

[2:20:52] five topics after saying there's something targeted that we can get just

[2:20:55] demonstrates that there are likely ideas to be

[2:20:59] » that are worthy of discussion. >> And I think once you start thinking

[2:21:02] critically, you'll find other things >> other things because we haven't thought

[2:21:05] about it critically in 10 years. So >> when these when these happen do that is

[2:21:09] it uh is there generally a review and encompassment of the remaining bylaws

[2:21:15] zoning bylaws plan you know >> no it's a charter review specifically

[2:21:19] the charter >> yeah just charter

[2:21:22] » a zoning bylaw like rewrite is a whole other situation I mean we go through

[2:21:27] those occasionally I've seen right I've seen years where like you know they went

[2:21:30] through and we changed bunch of things >> manually the last charter review that we

[2:21:35] did they had they had public meetings constantly and they had their open

[2:21:39] meetings constantly and I remember through the entire thing um the chair

[2:21:44] saying it was only at one meeting that they had one person come so and it was

[2:21:50] you know it was publicized pretty consistently but they did a lot

[2:21:54] of work I mean those three individuals did a whole lot of work I followed that

[2:21:59] » okay so I guess what I would suggest I guess the point of impact right now is

[2:22:04] whether we wait to town meeting to ask them to allow us to appoint the

[2:22:08] committee or if we just do it. >> We just do it.

[2:22:11] » I would just what would be the point of go I understand historically but what

[2:22:15] was the point in the past go to town meeting to ask them

[2:22:18] » they did they vote they're they're responsible for approving the charter.

[2:22:23] So engaging them in the process throughout is a way to make sure we're

[2:22:26] building consensus throughout as well. >> So just building exercise.

[2:22:29] » Yeah. Yeah, they participate in the formation of the committee, the charge

[2:22:32] and how it's composed. >> You're you're in a better position at

[2:22:36] the end to say >> here's the suggestion.

[2:22:39] » Here's where we came from. >> So that was the framework. They approved

[2:22:42] the creation of the committee and the composition of it and the appointment

[2:22:45] power of >> the members. Okay. I

[2:22:47] » mean, it's nothing to say that we can't it can be different. That's just what's

[2:22:52] been done in the past. >> Yeah. I would have actually I'd have to

[2:22:56] see his I'd like to see what the article looked like to appoint that 2016

[2:23:01] committee. I mean I >> I mean town meeting may have an a a an

[2:23:05] opinion upon who is on that committee. I'm not just saying by by name but by

[2:23:11] position right they may have um different opinions upon that. Should I

[2:23:16] and I think there may be some value to having that heard not to delay it. I

[2:23:20] mean, we're in middle of September. Town meeting, winter town meeting is when?

[2:23:24] » December. >> First week of December.

[2:23:25] » First week of December. So, we're only >> not that far away.

[2:23:29] » Two and a half months out. >> 10 weeks. There you go.

[2:23:32] » So, even if we took a little time to get this ready to go,

[2:23:36] not versus going to town meeting, getting the getting the, you know, the

[2:23:41] the buy in and then getting the committee done. just get everything

[2:23:45] ready to propose and just lock it in at the first week of town meeting.

[2:23:51] » Well, let's just >> I don't

[2:23:54] » I'm just saying if we want buy if we want buy in from town meeting first

[2:23:58] » I'm just saying >> agreed.

[2:23:59] » I I we're not looking I don't I think when I hear we're looking for buyin but

[2:24:04] we need to do a charter review. I mean, >> that wasn't the buyin part. I was I was

[2:24:08] suggesting it was the buyin of how the committee is is who's on the who's on

[2:24:12] the committee. The composition. >> Composition.

[2:24:14] » The composition. That that was the piece of it.

[2:24:17] » Okay. How about we get the last Warren article in front of us and then

[2:24:22] distributed and then we give feedback to um Nick and we can put it on the next

[2:24:28] agenda to talk about. >> Does that make sense?

[2:24:31] » The last war article >> that composed

[2:24:34] » the previous one. The previous Oh, the last one. the previous one I thought

[2:24:36] from 2016 or 15 whenever the last war article was put forth before town

[2:24:40] meeting. That way we're talking about something real and not something obscure

[2:24:44] and that way we can have thoughts and opinions on it

[2:24:47] » and we'll go from there. >> Yeah.

[2:24:49] » Okay. >> Great. I like that.

[2:24:50] » Speaking of town meeting. >> Yes, sir.

[2:24:52] » When hypothetically if this were to go on a warrant, when do we open the

[2:24:55] warrant for the December town meeting? That was on a timeline you shared at

[2:24:58] some point, but >> I want to say it's the the next meeting.

[2:25:02] I think it's the last meeting of this month and that stays open until October.

[2:25:04] Understood. >> But it might be the first meeting in

[2:25:06] October. I have to double check that. >> Okay. But it's in the next meeting or

[2:25:09] two. >> The real question is when does it

[2:25:10] closed? So it needs to be closed two and a half weeks prior because there's been

[2:25:15] multiple times where No, even No, we've changed the timeline.

[2:25:19] » No, it's going to be closed at the very end of October so that we have time to

[2:25:22] get it printed and out in advance. >> But we talked about in May last year we

[2:25:25] changed the timeline. >> When does it have to be closed?

[2:25:26] » End of October. >> End of October. Okay.

[2:25:28] » I'll I'll bring that slide to the next meeting so we can just all look at it

[2:25:31] again and be on the same page or I'll send it around to the five of you at

[2:25:33] least. >> Okay. Thank you to that.

[2:25:35] » We're going to move now to the discussion of the select board goals and

[2:25:39] priorities. >> All right. We uh for those of you who

[2:25:44] don't know, >> we met on a Saturday, a sunny Saturday

[2:25:50] in June at town hall in an open meeting to discuss

[2:25:56] select board goals. We gave individual goals and then we sort of ranked them in

[2:26:04] conversation um to to create some priorities. And

[2:26:08] what we hope to do is to distribute the goals and priorities to

[2:26:14] the boards and committees that advise us as a way to help them advise us in line

[2:26:22] with our goals and priorities. So this is supposed to help not only color the

[2:26:26] conversations we have here but outside of here um to make sure that you know

[2:26:34] when boards and committees are moving they are moving with confidence forward

[2:26:39] in line with our goals. So

[2:26:43] um we sort of grouped them um into >> let's see the meeting

[2:26:51] » multiple priorities. The first one being

[2:26:54] financial um these are all from the meet the meeting minutes.

[2:26:58] » Okay. >> Um from it's the fourth tab.

[2:27:01] » Tab number four. >> The fourth tab.

[2:27:03] » Was that July 7th? No. >> No. June.

[2:27:05] » June 27th. It's tab number four. >> Tab number four. Go to tab four.

[2:27:09] » Perfect. Thanks. >> See tab four.

[2:27:12] Okay. So, um discussion included uh long-term financial policy review. We

[2:27:17] talked about overtime management that that being a priority for the board,

[2:27:21] health insurance costs and looking at OPED and retirement planning. Um we

[2:27:26] talked a lot about financial forecasting and budget sustainability and long-term

[2:27:32] financial planning. Um I think part of the uh long-term financial planning

[2:27:38] included having conversations like in tri chair with um school and other

[2:27:46] making sure that we had theus accurate and correct and you know all those

[2:27:50] things we had t spoken about at the last collective tribe board meeting between

[2:27:57] fincom us and um school committee. Um, we talked about operational and

[2:28:02] organizational priorities including the charter review. So, we're already um

[2:28:06] coming to fruition at least on one of the charges. Um, we talked about trying

[2:28:10] to improve municipal operations uh through internal and external

[2:28:14] communications. Uh, committee coordination. This whole

[2:28:18] exercise was meant to help in committee communication of committees but also

[2:28:23] their viewpoints on where they're taking things. Um, trying to organize legal

[2:28:28] review. I think legal cost was also under financial priorities and legal

[2:28:33] review sort of grouped into the idea of how much who's reaching out for legal

[2:28:37] review if it's appropriate what what it if there's additional costs involved

[2:28:41] who's vetting that before it goes through.

[2:28:44] Um we talked a lot about labor relations

[2:28:48] versus municipal operations. Um Wayne had brought up a I think it was you

[2:28:53] Wayne a great idea about board and committee orientation and training. Was

[2:28:57] it you? Yes, I think it was you. So, >> um and that there are a couple really I

[2:29:02] can only think of school committee, but I don't know if FinCom goes through a a

[2:29:06] training. >> The assessors have training.

[2:29:08] » The assessors have training. So, there are some committees right now that do

[2:29:10] have training. Um there are some that do not.

[2:29:13] » Finom does have a training. You could take you can do a training thing.

[2:29:18] » The state association does it. >> Okay. Some of these were the issue.

[2:29:21] Yeah. Some of these were um you know like you said or um my god who did you

[2:29:26] just say the um >> planning

[2:29:28] » plan no >> planning and zoning go through it

[2:29:30] optional training as well >> assessors

[2:29:31] » assessors that was the one I was thinking of they have very specific um

[2:29:35] related very specific training related to their duties I was more talking about

[2:29:38] at a high level of how to organize meetings just kind of basic leadership

[2:29:42] uh development within our own committees right

[2:29:46] » how to take minutes how to post minutes >> uh how to make sure you post on teams

[2:29:52] correctly. How do we make it publicly accessible?

[2:29:56] » So, um also have uh community governance improve or committee governance

[2:30:02] improvements which I think have a lot to do with minutes and making sure that

[2:30:06] agendas are posted with the correct amount of information on them at the

[2:30:10] appropriate time. Um and then HDC historic commission coordination

[2:30:18] figuring out historic district um commission.

[2:30:22] » That might be something for the charter review.

[2:30:25] » Is that that's a charge? Is this a charge from the charter? The

[2:30:29] » HTC? >> That might be something to consider. We

[2:30:31] all had >> Is it in the charter? Did we create

[2:30:34] that? Or >> is that a bylaw?

[2:30:36] » I don't know. I have to check. >> Well, we should talk about that because

[2:30:38] that is something we talked in depth about whether

[2:30:41] » it's scope, its appropriateness, >> it's necessity.

[2:30:47] » Um veterans committee, we heard Mr. dementoto volunteer to uh to help

[2:30:52] coordinate getting some veterans involved in at least figuring out who's

[2:30:56] available for housing, but I think Wayne really was talking more about a veterans

[2:31:01] committee, which we used to have in town.

[2:31:04] » I was I was more looking for um a committee that could represent the

[2:31:10] continuing needs of Swamp Scouts veterans. And the the right now um it's

[2:31:15] my understanding we haven't had a an actual veteran survey since 1991. It's

[2:31:20] my understanding. Um and I'd like to see uh you know the needs of the veterans of

[2:31:25] different ages and different military scenarios over time have

[2:31:30] changed and the support needs have changed and um I I feel that we're kind

[2:31:37] of walking a little blind. M >> um so um I don't think that committee is

[2:31:42] just something you put together. I think uh it needs to come kind of kind of come

[2:31:46] from a grassroots from from the bottom up. Um so I've

[2:31:52] talked Mr. Deto, I've talked to a couple other people in the community about

[2:31:57] trying to get some information, trying to get some people that might be

[2:32:01] interested um into eventually I'd love to see a formal advisory committee

[2:32:06] formed. I don't think this is something you can do overnight, but it's something

[2:32:09] I'd like to definitely target. >> Great.

[2:32:15] » But hold on a second. We absolutely have to have some type of a committee

[2:32:20] together. Now, whether or not it's Mr. Demento is going to run an ad hoc

[2:32:24] committee, but we we have to make a decision on an on what are we going to

[2:32:29] do as far as putting together a team of people that will be able to advise and

[2:32:34] find veterans who would qualify for veterans housing.

[2:32:37] » Yeah, I think >> I mean, isn't that a charge of the

[2:32:39] veterans agent? >> I was going to ask that question. Yeah.

[2:32:42] » Right. Isn't he wouldn't he spearhead something like that?

[2:32:45] » So, I guess there's a difference between and this was explained when we first

[2:32:49] started to talk about this project. There's a difference between the

[2:32:52] information available to the veterans agent and the information that would be

[2:32:55] available to BBH and getting veterans in the housing. Um, so there is some

[2:33:02] information that that they cannot share with BBH for privacy reasons and things

[2:33:08] like that. So I I thought what the first charge was when we had talked about this

[2:33:12] and this was like 18 months ago was that once we were on this path of this

[2:33:16] happening, BBH was going to get us some information involving you know the

[2:33:21] calculation of AMI and how and that way we could bring it to the veterans agent

[2:33:27] understand how they're calculating it and how they're what the criteria and

[2:33:31] conditions are so that the veterans agent can help us along with some ad hoc

[2:33:35] members to identify help calculate identify and then apply.

[2:33:40] » So, we're going to have people, random people in Swampscott as members of a

[2:33:45] committee with access to information that is confidential.

[2:33:51] » No, no, >> no. So,

[2:33:52] » no, they just they just No. They just need to understand how BBH needs to tell

[2:33:57] us how to calculate it. >> Yeah.

[2:33:59] » And we can provide that information to veterans and we could through the

[2:34:04] veterans agent. they I don't they already have access to it to not their

[2:34:08] income or anything like that but the list of people we income driven

[2:34:13] » but it's just the AMI parameters that you have to meet and stay under that

[2:34:16] we're >> yeah I'm not advertising to the AMI just

[2:34:19] » this committee is just hoping to get more people

[2:34:21] » this is more of a marketing market >> I think you're all saying the same thing

[2:34:24] in different ways that it's it's a it's a group of residents and citizens that

[2:34:29] can >> that can help advocate along with Mike

[2:34:32] and the other assistants that work in his office in Lynn

[2:34:36] » to make sure everyone that should be el should be eligible or that we believe is

[2:34:39] eligible knows about it. >> Yeah.

[2:34:41] » The individual can then make their own determination whether or not they are or

[2:34:44] whether or not they're interested, >> right?

[2:34:46] » But it's sort of it's all these pieces together is how we will

[2:34:50] » do what you want and what you want and what like it's all together. I mean

[2:34:53] there's also advisory in terms of what services could be created or or provided

[2:34:58] at the the new center that we're eventually going to be having. What I

[2:35:04] don't want to see happen is what happened at Michon. At Michon the I

[2:35:09] think that Benet put out a great effort in getting the

[2:35:13] message out. I mean they were constantly at the farmers market talking to people

[2:35:17] about how to apply to get into Michan. They they were sending out flyers. They

[2:35:21] did a lot of stuff. However, we had a small a very small amount of people who

[2:35:26] ended up getting into Michan which didn't make any sense after we ran the

[2:35:31] numbers. So, I just don't want to I don't want to I don't want to leave it

[2:35:37] out there. I don't want to be vulnerable to having a mistake made here. I mean,

[2:35:41] this is veterans housing, and I want to make sure we have every opportunity to

[2:35:44] get veterans in there. >> I guess um

[2:35:48] » Well, how do you equivalate equival I'm trying to understand how you're

[2:35:51] linking that to the to the Michan BBH? >> So, what So, the question is what

[2:35:58] happened? We were we actually were here talking about it at the select board

[2:36:01] meeting when when we were first even thinking about um going into going to

[2:36:06] veterans housing. One of the concerns that we had and actually Peter was here

[2:36:11] um when I had I had the statistics to show really what happened and it was a

[2:36:15] real question like with all that effort that went out why is it only a small

[2:36:20] handful of Swamp Scout residents got into the Michan and so through those

[2:36:25] conversations we had decided we don't want to be in that position again. We

[2:36:29] want to make sure we do a really good job of making sure that people come and

[2:36:33] and apply and figure out what they have to do. And in a conversation I had with

[2:36:37] Kim Martin Epstein, there are things that you can do to manage your assets.

[2:36:42] So, one of the problems with Michon was a resident of Swampscott could have x

[2:36:48] amount of dollars worth of asset and make and be bringing in a small amount

[2:36:52] of money income on social security, but because of that asset, it ended up

[2:36:56] disqualifying them or or what happened quite a bit was people felt that because

[2:37:00] they had that asset, they didn't even apply when they could have applied.

[2:37:04] » And there are also things that you can do, I'm sorry, you can do in advance to

[2:37:08] protect that asset or, you know, put in a different position. So you do qualify

[2:37:13] for that. So you know for example if you have a veteran you have a veteran who

[2:37:17] was on the state police state police officer and he makes a decent pension

[2:37:23] now would he qualify or how do we get him to qualify? How do we help him

[2:37:28] legally to get him to qualify? So I don't know that we can help.

[2:37:32] » We can by getting information. >> That's what I was ineloquently saying

[2:37:36] earlier like getting the in getting the conditions from BBH and understanding

[2:37:41] either through um the help of Kim Martin Epstein or other

[2:37:45] » people who have far more information on this than we do. How can we help people

[2:37:50] get into a position that when it comes time to apply, they can be certain that

[2:37:55] they meet the parameters and they can, you know, be confident that their

[2:37:59] application will be considered. That was the conversation we had initially, not

[2:38:04] necessarily, you know, trying to get into their confidential information or

[2:38:07] anything like that, but advocating for folks so that they know if they have a

[2:38:10] large asset like a home, how they put it, how how they can

[2:38:14] » secure it, >> secure it in a way that still allows

[2:38:17] them to be able to apply to the situation.

[2:38:19] » Okay, >> that's that's what

[2:38:21] » just pushing out the information. So we have to get the information first and

[2:38:25] then we have to simultaneously assemble people who are reliable and giving out

[2:38:30] the information correctly. >> Wayne, your point in addition to all of

[2:38:34] that was to have this committee do advise a select board on programmatic

[2:38:38] things and support issues the ongoing needs of the veteran

[2:38:42] » community. Not just for the housing project. The housing project

[2:38:46] committee is different. >> Yeah. Okay. Got it.

[2:38:49] » Uh >> I think the committee we're talking

[2:38:51] about is temporary. >> Yes. you know, it's just a task uh task

[2:38:54] committee. Wayne's committee is, you know,

[2:38:56] » ongoing. >> Yeah. I'd like to be a standing standing

[2:38:58] committee. >> Yeah.

[2:39:00] » Um again, moving on to public safety and enforcement. Some of these things we've

[2:39:05] already talked about and we will continue to talk about, but parking

[2:39:08] enforcement, traffic safety, pedestrian safety. Mary Ellen has brought up, you

[2:39:12] know, fire and ambulance response and infrastructure.

[2:39:16] you know, when we had talked about whether the roads were wide enough and

[2:39:18] things like that, that's, you know, part of what we're talking about there.

[2:39:22] Illegal dumping. Um, infrastructure priorities, we had

[2:39:27] discussed, you know, obviously there's some infrastructure improvements that

[2:39:30] need to be made as Kleinfelder sort of discussed today. Water infrastructure,

[2:39:34] water harbor, waterfront development. We talked about beach concession areas, um,

[2:39:40] harbor management, which we talked about with Kleinfelder.

[2:39:43] Um parking we has been a topic of conversation in very recent history. Um

[2:39:48] parking management you know if we need infrastructure improvements for that. Um

[2:39:52] future development of parking and the financial impacts thereof. Um

[2:39:58] on the economic development we all a agreed

[2:40:03] without delay that Hawthorne Hadley were you know developments that we properties

[2:40:08] that we needed to see developed. Um, the church parking lot came up in

[2:40:13] conversation. I'm sorry, that would be the St. John's Church parking lot. Um,

[2:40:18] establishment of a potential economic development committee. We talked about

[2:40:23] that. We didn't really land, but something we can continue to talk about

[2:40:26] here. Um, developing a long-term economic development plan, redevelopment

[2:40:31] of unused town- owned properties that we had a long conversation about that. And

[2:40:36] then the preservation and redevelopment of historic properties.

[2:40:40] um let's see community priorities,

[2:40:44] community engagement, community trust, communication with residents and the

[2:40:48] support from the boards and committees to facilitate that and more. Um I think

[2:40:55] you know we we are in a rebuild process for engagement and trust and it's really

[2:41:00] important in that to be to try to be transparent as we can be and communicate

[2:41:07] as much as we can and um it would be helpful from the community to all one of

[2:41:13] you that's listening but hopefully lots of people are listening on YouTube and I

[2:41:16] can't see you. Um, if you have thoughtful ideas, contact Shannon,

[2:41:20] contact Civic Plus, contact any one of us, call Mary Ellen, call me. Um, to say

[2:41:28] we're not engaging enough is okay. To say you could engage better by doing X

[2:41:34] is better, right? And that's helpful and we can action that. Um

[2:41:40] to continue on the communication route, charter review communication, committee

[2:41:45] communications, public messaging, annual reports is really something that's

[2:41:49] fallen off the radar for a a lot of boards and committees. There's

[2:41:54] » Don't they get filed with the clerk every year?

[2:41:56] » Well, they're supposed to, Ted. I don't know that every board and committee has

[2:42:00] been doing it. under our former clerk, there was a delay with some annual

[2:42:05] reports and that's being >> remedied by our current clerk.

[2:42:08] » Understood. >> So maybe we will get back into the swing

[2:42:11] of annual reports and >> understanding why they're important, how

[2:42:15] they report out to the community and um we've gone through some website

[2:42:19] improvements. I bet there'll be more um but we did talk a little bit about that

[2:42:26] and then better public engagement. We are always looking for ways to not be

[2:42:31] the ones sitting up here, right? Like we want to be here right now, but like

[2:42:35] there there's a whole version of the public that should be engaged. And if

[2:42:39] you want to sit in my seat, happy to discuss it with you. Um so the action

[2:42:46] items we left with are uh reviewing the charter, which is great because we're

[2:42:50] talking about it now. um developing a long-term financial plan, evaluating the

[2:42:56] Hawthorne and the church parking lot opportunities. We're sort of in the

[2:43:00] midst of that and we'd like to get closer towards the end of that.

[2:43:04] Continuing OPED analysis, um reviewing the health insurance costs,

[2:43:10] uh evaluating a parking management strategy. We started that which is

[2:43:13] great. Um we had been talking about that and now I think it's coming to you know

[2:43:18] closer to fruition in our last meeting. developing

[2:43:23] economic development framework, reviewing the committee structure and

[2:43:28] the orientation process, continuing with infrastructure planning like our

[2:43:33] conversation today with Kleinfelder and others, but also, you know, we had a big

[2:43:38] push recently um in the last couple of years to not just talk about all the

[2:43:44] things we've failed to do, but how we safeguard the things we're doing now. So

[2:43:50] you know especially on the beaches we've we had a lot of

[2:43:55] long time of failure of not doing enough and now we are doing it. So how do we

[2:44:00] simultaneously continue to make improvements and safeguard the

[2:44:03] improvements we've made? So we talk a lot about mitigating future issues and

[2:44:08] um making sure that that is cod like codified in some way um in capital and

[2:44:15] then improvement to community communication strategies.

[2:44:19] So I think for our next steps we sort of have to figure out short, medium,

[2:44:25] long-term projects and if there are de uh departmental folks who can help us

[2:44:31] facilitate some of them and then try to implement a timeline because

[2:44:36] that'll hold us accountable. >> There's a lot of stuff on this list,

[2:44:41] » right? And I I >> Can you speak into the mic?

[2:44:44] » Oh, sorry. There's a lot of stuff on this list. Can you hear me now, Nick?

[2:44:48] » Get closer. like you're a rock star wonky setup here tonight tables.

[2:44:54] So, what does success look like? I mean, h how are we really judging by the la

[2:45:00] large laundry list of things? I don't want this to just be u an exercise in

[2:45:07] futility, right? I mean, how do we really assess

[2:45:10] how well we've done, how how close to goal we're getting? What does it look

[2:45:14] like? I mean, what does completion look like? you know, so I'm struggling just

[2:45:18] looking at this, you know, all of this this list of things. You know, it maybe

[2:45:23] we need to organize it a little bit more. You know, maybe it needs to be

[2:45:27] broken up short-term, midterm, long-term. Um, you know, I'd like to see

[2:45:31] things completed, checked off. What is what does that look like? Right.

[2:45:35] » I I think we need a little more definition

[2:45:38] in order to do that. >> Yeah.

[2:45:39] » Um, we talked a lot of these are very very high level. Um, they have

[2:45:43] subcategories to each one of them. >> Yeah. Um, and maybe we can start to

[2:45:46] stretch that out a little bit more so that we can give some very clear

[2:45:50] instruction to those that would be responsible for um both evaluating and

[2:45:57] and and exercising or executing the uh the the the

[2:46:03] plan, >> right? It's like some duplication that

[2:46:07] » Yeah, there's some crossover for sure. >> There is, but it was categorized,

[2:46:10] » right? There are some things we we really don't have direct control over.

[2:46:13] we the five of us annual reports, you know, u website improvements, those are

[2:46:19] not things we could actually fix or complete, right? So maybe we just reorg

[2:46:24] this a little bit so it's a little more actionable.

[2:46:28] » Yeah, >> sure. I if can I jump in,

[2:46:31] » please? >> Please. I I think that any of these

[2:46:34] require staff, >> so it's not just the website or any one

[2:46:38] of them. Um, so we're happy to give you something or to have you all meet again

[2:46:44] and come up with it on you tell us which way you want to do that and we're happy

[2:46:48] to move forward >> right

[2:46:49] » in that framework. It could be that we bucket it by department head or topic,

[2:46:55] you know, >> so that we can identify things that live

[2:46:57] in a few different areas as Wayne just mentioned,

[2:46:59] » right? um or that we identify needing significant detail to get to what you

[2:47:05] want >> because the action items are things that

[2:47:07] are a little more specific >> whereas the larger list you know

[2:47:11] provides a lot of context in a framework but to get from here to implementation

[2:47:16] » we would want more input from all of you >> right because there's good there's a lot

[2:47:19] of good stuff here I don't mean to say that there isn't I just want it to be

[2:47:23] thoughtful and really have impact so that we do complete these things that we

[2:47:27] say are priorities so I think >> we just need a little bit more help.

[2:47:31] » Could I suggest then that the five of us respond back to this or maybe Nick, you

[2:47:38] can set a template for us that we can give you feedback as to what those

[2:47:43] details are and then you consolidate them maybe. Does that sound like a

[2:47:47] reasonable second next step >> and then we can review?

[2:47:52] » Yeah, I mean otherwise we can bucket them by category

[2:47:54] » category or or department sort of. >> Yeah. And then

[2:47:59] » or you can >> you can email me, I can meet with you.

[2:48:02] It doesn't we we will take feedback in any form. So

[2:48:05] » yeah, I think what we have what speaking from prior years, we have all come up

[2:48:12] with Marielen, correct me if I'm wrong, we

[2:48:15] sort of all came up with our own version of priorities and then we would all

[2:48:20] scatter and do our own things, right? And some people were more successful

[2:48:24] than others >> on getting those things to fruition. And

[2:48:28] so I think what we're trying to do is help Nick and other department heads

[2:48:34] know these this is the will of the board, not just an individual member of

[2:48:38] the board or a small group of the board, but this is more of these are the things

[2:48:43] we should be focusing on. And sure, other things matter, but the this is

[2:48:47] what we've sort of stamped right now as priorities,

[2:48:50] » right? So, yeah, I think if we could boil it down a little bit further,

[2:48:56] um, that is probably going to be the best way to action it.

[2:49:01] » Yep. So, maybe Nick, you want to take a stab at maybe just grouping it,

[2:49:05] organizing it by category and, you know, soliciting feedback?

[2:49:09] » Yeah. Or what? >> Sure.

[2:49:13] » Like I said, I'm happy to email and have you write it or we can

[2:49:17] » Yeah. >> sit down individually to get that

[2:49:19] feedback. Okay, >> great.

[2:49:21] » Great. >> Okay,

[2:49:24] perfect. Select board time.

[2:49:32] Well, I can go first. I just want to uh thank Nate, um Ameiliano,

[2:49:39] Joe, and Ethan for running in at the last minute and being able to put on

[2:49:43] tonight's meeting. We had a lot of difficult technical issues in the

[2:49:47] beginning. So, if you weren't here, you missed a

[2:49:51] » circus. >> Swap out of microphones.

[2:49:54] » They did a great job and once again, they're bringing to us. Um, I also uh

[2:50:00] want to bring to the attention of the town that

[2:50:04] the Swam uh what is it? Swamcott Performance Center is now open. They

[2:50:11] opened on Saturday, which was nice. and um think they're going to be open every

[2:50:15] day now and we've got things moving along and I just

[2:50:20] » swaps center for performing arts >> swaps center for performing arts right

[2:50:24] or aka the old farm um things are going on over there um we all received an

[2:50:30] email on um we all received an email from a resident we we received many

[2:50:36] emails from residents but the one email that really stuck out for me this week

[2:50:40] was a resident who was commenting on um the first day of school with the seniors

[2:50:45] driving around and hanging out of vehicles and putting making it um some

[2:50:51] decisions that could have put them into a pretty bad situation. And it seems

[2:50:57] like that goes on every single year. And I I would just like to ask Nick if you

[2:51:01] could have a conversation with the superintendent and the chief of police

[2:51:05] and maybe there can be an organized parade or something on the first day of

[2:51:10] school to to um make sure that the seniors get the attention and the the

[2:51:16] fun that they have on the first day going to school and also keep them safe.

[2:51:21] But when the superintendent says this is something that he's concerned about, the

[2:51:25] principal says she's concerned about it, the chief says he's concerned about it,

[2:51:29] I just I'd like to see some action being taken so that the kids don't miss out on

[2:51:35] a great experience and we're not sitting here a year from now with a tragedy on

[2:51:39] our hands. So, um, that's all I have to request and report.

[2:51:48] » Anybody? Danielle, Ted, Wayne? >> No. Good.

[2:51:51] » At the last meeting, I made a comment about transit oriented developments. My

[2:51:56] comment was strictly in relation to the permitting of that through the zoning

[2:52:00] package that was done through a 40B application, not an MBTA 3A zoning

[2:52:05] package, not a 161A zoning package or uh any of the other transit oriented

[2:52:11] developments that statute allows. Financing was not what I was

[2:52:14] insinuating. So, I apologize if there was any confusion. Marielle and I

[2:52:18] apologize if there was any confusion from my inarticulate response.

[2:52:22] » Oh, that's me. >> That's it. I would like to uh also

[2:52:29] review a comment that I had made about wanting to

[2:52:35] get more information about those other 140 communities that were also not

[2:52:42] » disallowed. you know, the for us the roughly 200

[2:52:46] something thousand. Um I I would like to find more information what commonalities

[2:52:50] there were. Um and you know, this is where we do approach before we have to

[2:52:56] take any type of expensive legal action. But I agree going to Marky um and and

[2:53:02] going to who or even to warn whoever else will listen um to ask them

[2:53:08] what the hell just happened here? Why are we saddled with something that we

[2:53:11] thought that we followed the rules that we thought we were supposed to get and

[2:53:14] now small towns like us have to, you know, take on the take on the the brunt.

[2:53:20] » Mhm. So, >> uh, tri chair meets at 8 a.m. on Friday.

[2:53:27] So, we'll be at town hall. Uh, we've met once before. Again, we're meeting to

[2:53:32] discuss theus and align them. Um some of them are out of date and need updating.

[2:53:40] um some of them need re-evaluation and some of them need further consideration

[2:53:45] and we will be um bringing I think I think the conversation was a sort of

[2:53:51] like a tri board meeting prebudget conversation so that everybody could

[2:53:55] come together again in the way we did before so that we're recorded and have a

[2:53:59] very clear understanding of what all the questions on the table are um and

[2:54:04] something to go back to when people say what did we mean when we wrote that um

[2:54:08] So, um, that's the plan. Happy to take any feedback. Um, you guys can give it

[2:54:14] to Nick and Nick will be there with me. Patrick's going to join us, too.

[2:54:18] » When is that again? >> Try chair. It's 8:00 a.m. on September

[2:54:22] 11th, right before the memorial service remembrance.

[2:54:29] Okay. I'll take a motion to adjourn. Second. All

[2:54:33] » in favor? I I >> Thank you.

[2:54:36] » Thank you.

Select Board - September 8, 2026

Transcript