Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Chair Election and Meeting Opening (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:01:00)
Moses Grader opened the meeting and explained that the first order of business was to elect a chair. He noted that while participants can attend remotely under the law, and Dan Fox was participating remotely, the person serving as chair must be physically present in person.
Grader entertained a motion to elect a chair pro tem. A committee member nominated Alexa Singer, and another committee member seconded the nomination. With no other nominations presented, Grader called for a roll call vote. Dan Fox voted in favor remotely, another member voted in favor, and Grader voted in favor as well. Singer was elected as chair.
Singer then called the meeting of Wednesday, March 25, 2026 to order. She announced that the meeting was being recorded and noted that one member was participating remotely. Singer moved to the agenda item of public comment and provided instructions for speakers, asking them to come up to the microphone stand to help identify who was speaking, even though there was not actually a microphone in the stand at the time. She explained this would help both the committee and the audience hear everyone clearly.
Public Comment (Link: 00:01:00 – 00:31:00)
A speaker from 113 Jersey Street identified himself as the newly appointed layoff committee chair of the Marblehead Municipal Employees Union, Local IBCWA Local 1776. He criticized the timing of presenting significant budget issues just 53 days before town meeting, stating this was unprecedented in his decades as a union president. He expressed support for a general override and solidarity with the Marblehead Education Association, police and fire departments, emphasizing that one job loss is too many. The speaker highlighted the human impact of potential layoffs, describing how a custodian who prepared the meeting room would go home worrying about his family’s future. He warned about unintended consequences of the reduction in force, noting that most affected employees are under union contracts that would require negotiation for any changes. He explained that outsourcing would not be cost effective and that losing parks and cemetery staff would eliminate six to seven plow drivers while shifting work to already overburdened highway employees. The speaker concluded by questioning what the community values about Marblehead and whether residents are willing to sacrifice quality of life to save on property taxes.
Renee Ramirez Keaney of 2 Beverly Avenue thanked the board and town departments for doing more with less in recent years. She acknowledged the town’s efforts to address the structural deficit through various revenue increases and efficiency measures, stating that the town has hit a financial brick wall like many others. Keaney expressed that she doesn’t care whether she pays for trash pickup through fees or an override, but wants a realistic solution that funds services without pitting departments against each other. She advocated for a multi-year override solution to avoid facing the same situation next year.
Jonathan Heller of 26 Ralph Road spoke as a community member, parent, and teacher, sharing a statement he had also read at the school committee meeting. He described the $7.7 million budget gap and its potential impact on positions and services across the community. Heller noted that while enrollment has decreased and staffing has adjusted accordingly, student needs have become more complex and require consistent support. He emphasized that any additional reductions to classroom teachers, support staff, or student services would be felt in real ways by students. He expressed confidence in the superintendent and assistant superintendent, calling for the community to come together around one comprehensive solution that supports both schools and town services.
A resident from 24 Shepherd Street asked whether the town had considered offering early retirement incentives to employees, similar to what the state is currently offering with $20,000 incentives. Singer responded that such programs are state mandated and the state would have to give permission, which they have not done. The resident pressed whether the town had asked for permission, and Singer indicated that other municipalities have asked and been told no, though she was not aware if Marblehead had asked recently. The resident, whose husband’s job is at risk, urged the town to ask anyway, explaining their family’s financial situation with two children in college.
Caroline Hawkins of 180 Green Street spoke in support of a long-term solution rather than a temporary fix. She described how town services impact her family across generations, from her grandfather’s use of the Council on Aging to her parents’ library visits and her daughters’ participation in parks and recreation programs. Hawkins emphasized that these services represent who the town is and that residents shouldn’t have to choose between them or see departments competing for survival. She advocated for a multi-year override that thoughtfully addresses the town’s needs for years to come.
A resident from 23 Cyprus apologized for being uneducated about local politics, having moved to town four years ago. He requested an explanation of how the budget crisis occurred, noting that a balanced budget was passed at the last town meeting along with a tax refund vote.
Kate Thompson of 30 Blue Beer Road and Matt Hooks of 92 Nana Passman Street introduced themselves as co-chairs of “For Marblehead,” a grassroots organization launched three weeks prior to strengthen municipal services, schools, and infrastructure through sustainable funding. Thompson reported extraordinary response with 262 volunteers, 2,200 website page views from 1,000 unique visitors in three days, and 86 people on a recent Zoom call. Hooks clarified that their support is conditional, not a rubber stamp for any override, and they want a multi-tier, multi-year override that holistically supports the town. Thompson invited everyone to their kickoff party at the landing on the 8th.
A resident from 64 Roosevelt Avenue expressed concerns about affordability for elderly residents, citing an example of a 90-year-old’s daughter who won’t be able to afford the $250 trash pickup fee. He criticized what he called a “supersize override” and argued for a reasonable approach that considers elderly residents living alone. The speaker criticized the new trash fee system, questioning why the town would hire another clerk for $70,000 plus benefits to collect fees and allow out-of-town residents to use the facility at the same rate as residents. He argued this contradicted the town’s environmental goals and questioned the Board of Health’s approach to what he saw as creating a monopoly.
Sarah Fox of 46 Fort Street focused on actual numbers, describing the budget crisis as a simple math problem where the levy has not grown at the capacity to match expenses. She attributed the situation to over-reliance on free cash for 15 to 17 years, calling it a “steady death march” to the current point. Fox raised specific concerns about Essex Tech enrollment projections, explaining that the state has changed the model from capping Marblehead at 9-11 new students per year to taking 39 new students annually. She warned that this change would result in a significant financial impact, with the town’s assessment potentially increasing from the current projection of around $550,000 to $1.1 million, and continuing to grow by $500,000-$600,000 each year for the next four years. Fox urged the committee to dig deeper into their numbers before proposing an override, warning that inaccurate projections would undermine public trust.
Rebecca Ben of 11 Cottage Street expressed concern for older residents living in family homes with limited income. She asked whether there could be income-based considerations for tax increases, suggesting that people with very little income might receive a break on their taxes.
Singer asked if anyone online wanted to speak, and Grader confirmed that no hands were raised online. Singer then moved to the next agenda item involving the town administrator.
Spooky Donuts Licensing (Link: 00:31:00 – 00:40:00)
Thatcher Keezer provided two brief updates to the board. First, he announced that the next class of the citizens police academy is now open for registration, running from April 23rd to June 11th on Thursday evenings from 6 to 9pm. Keezer encouraged residents to participate, noting that attendees gain a much better understanding of police department operations and challenges.
Keezer then made editorial comments about the importance of being mindful of words used in public discourse during heated budget discussions. He specifically addressed what he characterized as questioning and challenging the integrity of Chief Financial Officer Aleesha Benjamin’s numbers and competency. Keezer stated that Benjamin is among the top chief financial officers he has worked with in terms of competency and work ethic, noting that she often works through the night to double and triple check her work. He said he would be happy to stand toe to toe with anyone who would challenge her competency, numbers, or work ethic.
Dan Fox thanked Keezer for his comments, stating that he had similar thoughts when reading criticisms. Fox noted that Benjamin’s numbers have been reviewed multiple times by multiple people and have consistently been correct. A committee member also corroborated these statements, calling Benjamin the most conscientious, hardworking, and focused CFO they have worked with, expressing complete confidence in how the numbers are scrubbed, presented, and reconciled.
Singer proposed deviating from the agenda to move the tree hearing until after the budget discussion, noting that many people were present to listen to the budget discussion. The board agreed to this change.
Singer then called Jason Subino from Spooky Donuts LLC to present his licensing application. Subino explained that he is a Dunkin franchisee living in Manchester by the Sea and a second-generation franchisee who has been in the business since birth. He recently purchased four stores, including three in Salem and one in Marblehead, and came to obtain his common victualer license. He explained that a company he hired to handle the licensing had dropped the ball, and he only discovered the issue when going through the renewal process after completing a remodel of the location.
Subino described the remodeling work he completed at the Marblehead location and other Salem locations, noting that these were tired locations that had been neglected. He mentioned that the remodel project was larger than anticipated but hoped customers would like the improvements.
Singer called for a motion to approve the application from Spooky Donuts LLC for a commissary license at 161 Pleasant Street with manager J. Subino, subject to receipt of all required forms, fees and applicable department sign-offs. The hours of operation would be Sunday through Saturday, 4:30am to 7:00pm. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by roll call vote, with all committee members voting in favor.
Budget Override Discussion (Link: 00:41:00 – 01:30:00)
Singer introduced the budget override discussion and recommended that Thatcher Keezer begin with his presentation. A committee member requested a brief overview of what a potential override would look like, noting there are two warrant articles and asking for clarification on the voting process. Keezer explained he was tasked with presenting an override framework based on conversations over recent weeks, representing what appears to be a majority consensus, with different variations available. He clarified there are two warrant articles – one specific to a school override and one for a town override, with the town override article serving as the vehicle that can capture all town functions including schools if chosen by the select board.
Keezer presented his framework titled “Providing Clear Choices for Our Communities,” explaining that the town faces significant budget challenges including rising costs, limited revenue, and the need to provide a balanced budget to town meeting. He described the approach as developing a balanced budget based on available revenues, with an override providing opportunity to add back items that have been cut. The framework proposes two override questions: Question 1 would allow voters to define the level of services they’re willing to fund on a tiered system, and Question 2 would address trash funding by giving residents the option to raise the tax levy to replace or repeal the proposed trash fee.
Keezer detailed the multi-tier structure for Question 1, with three tiers building on each other. Question 1A would provide revenues for partial restoration of items cut in the proposed budget, ensuring critical services and quality of life services are fully funded. Question 1B would add stabilization and building capacity above the restore level, including maintenance of historic buildings and bringing back positions cut over recent years. Question 1C would allow investment and improvement, adding revenues for larger capital investments like seawalls, fences, roadways, and equipment. He explained that voters can vote yes or no on any combination of options, with the highest value tier that passes with a majority determining the levy increase.
For Tier 1 examples, Keezer listed potential partial restorations including a firefighter position, SRO officer, hot top funding, library services restoration, and public buildings custodial staff. Tier 2 would include everything in Tier 1 plus additional items like building maintenance, public safety and DPW staffing restoration, and salary study recommendations to make Marblehead competitive with comparable communities. He noted that Marblehead salaries are behind comparable communities, making retention and recruitment difficult, and that the town needs to compensate for being at the end of a peninsula. Tier 3 would include all previous items plus additional money for small capital investments like seawalls, fences, equipment, and long-range capital planning.
Question 2 would be a binary question asking whether voters prefer to continue paying for trash and recycling through fees or put it on the tax levy with a corresponding levy increase. Keezer noted considerations about whether to calculate this as a three-year solution consistent with Question 1 or as a five-year solution to cover the life cycle of the new trash and recycling contract.
The committee then engaged in extensive discussion about the framework. Erin Noonan expressed preference for a multi-year solution rather than a one-year band-aid approach, arguing it would be difficult for department heads to manage with only one-year job security and would make it hard to attract, hire, train, and retain municipal employees. Dan Fox agreed with the multi-year approach but wanted the board to make a commitment or pledge about how they would use the tax levy each year.
A committee member supported the multi-tiered approach and three-year projections, emphasizing that Marblehead residents historically support overrides when there are well-defined cost drivers. However, they advocated for a more menu-driven approach for the restore function, wanting individual department heads to speak to what they do and provide more detailed justification for restoration needs. They argued for complete restoration, noting that both the town and schools have been efficient, with schools performing at the mean for spending per student and FTE per student metrics.
Fox disagreed with the menu approach, arguing it would pit departments against each other and complicate the process. He advocated for the board to make executive decisions and present a unified approach, stating that the town should “swim together or sink together.” He supported having some tiers but opposed breaking things down into detailed menus.
James Zisson emphasized needing to see actual numbers before making decisions and raised concerns about multi-year projections for unpredictable costs like healthcare and pensions. He noted that if conservative estimates like 15% healthcare increases are used, the costs could compound significantly over multiple years, requiring careful consideration of controls and assumptions. Keezer explained that an override technically authorizes a new levy limit but doesn’t require using it all in the first year, allowing flexibility to manage tax increases year by year.
Noonan clarified the multi-year concept, explaining that voters would be asked for a total amount but the town wouldn’t call on it all in year one, spreading it out over time and providing flexibility for variabilities. A committee member agreed but emphasized tying multi-year overrides to specific cost drivers to increase chances of success.
Zisson supported the tiered approach but insisted that one tier should be for one year, with other tiers potentially being multi-year to provide choice. The discussion included technical questions about how to construct override language for different approaches and whether menu options within tiers would be too complicated.
Fox proposed making a pledge to the town about how much levy would be used each year, suggesting specific amounts for year one, year two, and year three to avoid returning to town meeting multiple times. A committee member agreed that the pledge would be in identifying specific spending plans and cost drivers.
Fox urged the board to vote that evening on which approach to take, arguing they needed to move forward so people could feel comfortable in their jobs and so supporters and opponents could know the board’s position. Singer then shared extensive thoughts about her concerns with a menu-style approach, arguing it would break up coordinated budgeting since town budgets are built on integrated systems where departments depend on each other. She worried about underfunding essential but less visible services, creating hidden costs elsewhere, and undermining long-term financial planning. Singer referenced the town’s 2005 experience with a menu approach where some departments passed and others didn’t, requiring a return to voters 12 months later with a comprehensive package that ultimately sustained the town for years.
Budget Override Discussion Format and Approach (Link: 01:30:00 – 02:08:00)
James Zisson requested to present four slides he had submitted two weeks prior before continuing the menu discussion. He clarified that the menu discussion was different from the department-by-department approach used previously. Noonan expressed preference for discussing what should be included in the override before discussing its format.
Zisson presented his menu override approach, explaining it involves two or more questions for different funding areas, typically grouping functions rather than individual departments to avoid pitting departments against each other. He noted that tiered and menu approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be combined, with menu items potentially having their own tiers. He presented example groupings including public safety (police and fire), public infrastructure and maintenance (DPW, building department, parks and recreation, cemetery, Council on Aging), waste collection as a singular item, culture and recreation (library, Council on Aging, parks and recreation), and core departments (finance, assessor, building inspector, planning, HR, public health, town clerk, legal, veterans agent, select board office). He emphasized the need for careful consideration of other general government costs for multi-year projections.
Zisson argued that grouping functions together avoids departmental competition, allows meaningful decision-making at town meeting without being overwhelming, adds voter choice, can be combined with tiers, separates unique and potentially divisive issues like waste collection, and gives town meeting ability to send clear leadership direction. He suggested proceeding with Keezer’s plan while keeping the menu approach under consideration, emphasizing he could not vote without seeing actual numbers.
Aleesha Benjamin offered to provide hard numbers and methodology for health insurance projections, acknowledging that forecasting would involve best estimates. She expressed concern that the menu approach creates departmental competition, stating she had seen departments advocating against each other and preferred having one unified voice as one team and one town.
Noonan agreed with the waste article as a unique standalone item but opposed the menu approach, arguing it is fundamentally alien to how the town actually budgets and governs. She explained that the general fund operates as an integrated system rather than dedicated silos, and that it would be misleading to voters who might think they voted for specific services only to face cuts later due to other cost pressures like employee health insurance and contractual obligations.
Fox agreed the menu approach was disingenuous because after year one, funding would return to the general fund rather than staying in designated categories. He argued it would confuse voters, require them to learn about individual budget items, and dilute the overall message. Singer raised concerns about contractual obligations and union contracts that would complicate accurate allocation of funding in a menu system.
Grader addressed what he called “the elephant in the room,” noting that recent school-driven overrides had failed and that there were concerns about school funding transparency. He argued that with new financial systems providing better visibility into school spending, this represented an opportunity for schools to present their budget clearly. He emphasized the need for budget chairs and responsible parties to explain to taxpayers why money is being requested, noting that previous override attempts had failed due to lack of clear numbers and communication.
Noonan made a motion directing the town administrator to pursue a multi-year, multi-tier solution modeled on the day’s presentation, with questions framed as comprehensive approaches about the cost of running government at restore, stabilize, and invest levels. Fox seconded the motion. Grader proposed an amendment to make Question 1A a full restoration rather than partial restoration of identified budget cuts. After discussion about the need to see specific details before committing to full restoration, the amendment was modified to simply use the word “restore” without the qualifier “partial” or “full.” The amendment passed unanimously.
The main motion for a multi-year, multi-tier approach passed with Grader voting against and all other members voting in favor. Noonan then made a motion to authorize Keezer to implement a standalone curbside trash pickup override option alongside the main override, which passed unanimously.
Fox suggested creating a working group with school leadership to develop unified override numbers. Noonan made a motion supporting a unified approach to an override question including both town and school in a single article, directing the town administrator to create an advisory committee with elected officials from the select board, school committee, and finance committee. The motion passed unanimously. Keezer indicated the working group would convene the following week and present a package at the next meeting two weeks later.
Singer called for a brief recess before proceeding to the public tree hearing, and Fox indicated he would not be present when the meeting resumed.
Tree Removal Request Public Hearing (Link: 02:08:00 – 02:41:00)
After a brief recess, Singer reconvened the meeting for the public tree hearing to continue reviewing the application for tree removal. Keezer summarized the previous discussion, explaining that the request was to remove three trees next to the Ariel building based on their condition and impact on the building, including concerns about the roof and fiber wire running through one of the trees. He noted that Mary Alley serves as the main hub of the town’s entire network and mentioned contemplated renovation work requiring regrading and leveling for ADA compliance.
Steve Cummings provided additional information since the previous meeting, including a consultation with Dan Mayer, a Massachusetts certified arborist and owner of Mayer Tree, who met with him at 6 AM to assess the trees. Cummings distributed packets containing Mayer’s letter and renovation plans. He explained that the proposed ADA walkway on the right side corner of the building would require excavation of 3 to 4 feet, extending into the root zone of nearby trees located 5 to 6 feet from the walkway.
Cummings reported new discoveries including sewer and drain lines running between and very close to the trees, with roots interfering with manholes and an open stormwater drain cover. He emphasized the catastrophic risk if the stormwater system became plugged during heavy rainfall, given that all roof leaders from the 10,000 square foot flat roof with 2-foot parapet drain into that system. He noted that the fiber optic line running through one tree is the main line, not a loop, and if it fails, all fire and police communications would be lost. He mentioned that two or three significant branches had fallen during recent storms.
Amy McHugh addressed the sewer line concerns, explaining that tree roots typically only impact sewer lines when there are imperfections, and that trees actually help identify infiltration problems that the town is under administrative order to address. She agreed that stormwater issues and the fiber loop were valid concerns but suggested removing the sewer argument from the justification.
John Fulber, the tree warden, discussed his meeting with Cummings and explained the tree protection zone concept, noting that trees with 28-30 inch diameters would have protection zones extending 30 feet from their base. He identified pine bark beetle damage in the red pine tree directly in front of the door, with evidence of larva mining the cambium layer and causing decline visible through yellowing needles and dead branches. Fulber noted these trees were planted as ornamental trees when the building was constructed but now want to reach heights of 70-80 feet, and that removing one tree would expose others to wind throw since they work together for protection.
Cummings emphasized that with roots potentially extending 25-30 feet and the furthest tree only 15-20 feet from the building, all roots are within the building’s foundation area. He argued for removing all three trees and replacing them with better trees in better locations to protect the significant investment being made in the building renovation.
Discussion turned to replacement requirements and funding. Fulber explained the traditional tree replacement formula of one 2-inch caliper tree for every 2 inches of removed tree caliper, meaning a 20-inch tree would require 10 replacement trees planted somewhere in town. Noonan questioned how replacement would be funded since the town typically requires homeowners to bear this cost.
Cummings explained that the project is in the document phase preparing for bidding, and he is holding aside significant money for incidentals rather than bidding to the penny. He indicated there should be funds available for landscaping and tree replacement. Keezer clarified that the Mary Alley project would address some replacement through its landscaping plan, with the town accounting for additional trees through other projects over time.
Fulber distinguished between homeowner tree removals, where they compensate the town for removing public assets, and town removals of its own assets, suggesting different standards apply. He noted that the light department makes good faith efforts to replace trees they remove under Massachusetts General Laws, though not legally obligated.
Cummings emphasized the importance of giving the building curb appeal through landscaping as part of the significant investment being made. Noonan expressed concern about cost escalation in projects and landscaping being typically cut first, wanting to ensure the town models good behavior regarding tree replacement expectations. Cummings assured the board he would focus on the numbers and stretch the budget as far as possible while maintaining necessary contingencies.
Singer called for a motion to approve the request to remove the three trees at 7 Witcher Road in accordance with the Town of Marblehead Shade Tree policy. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, with the board no longer requiring roll call votes since Fox had left the meeting.
Administrative Appointments and Consent Agenda (Link: 02:42:00 – 02:45:00)
Singer addressed the reappointment for the inspector of animals, explaining that this appointment follows a state schedule different from the town’s normal cycle because the Department of Agriculture sets terms that run from May 1st. She made a motion to reappoint Emily de Grande as inspector of animals with the term to expire April 30, 2027. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously without discussion.
Singer then moved to the consent agenda items, making a motion to approve the following items subject to the usual rules and regulations, fees and receipt of required certificate of insurance: the minutes of March 4th, 2026; Abbott Hall Festival of the Arts July 4th events at Abbott Hall, Fort Sewall, and Old Townhouse if occupancy is approved as presented; and declaring April 24, 2026 as Barber Day in the town of Marblehead with preparation of a proclamation. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Singer introduced the next item regarding a request to use the image of the Spirit of ’76, noting that the board had received a letter to review. She highlighted that this request was different from typical applications because it was from a for-profit operation rather than a nonprofit, describing it as basically a marketing campaign. Singer noted that historically the town has not typically approved such requests that were not for nonprofit campaigns, opening the matter for discussion.
Spirit of 76 Image Use Request (Link: 02:45:00 – 02:50:00)
Keezer explained that the request came from a hot dog company seeking to use the Spirit of ’76 image as part of their marketing campaign, with the proposal involving having the individuals in the painting holding hot dogs. Singer expressed concerns about the appropriateness of this use, noting it was not in great taste.
James Zisson asked whether there was any financial remuneration involved in the request. Keezer indicated he was unsure, and Singer noted that the application only mentioned the company partnering with the Museum of Fine Arts to showcase artwork and potentially include an activation within the museum.
Noonan suggested considering that if the Museum of Fine Arts was indeed moving forward with this campaign, there might be educational value in promoting arts and exposing younger audiences to historical images they might not otherwise see through pop culture exposure. She requested clarification about the MFA’s involvement but noted she didn’t have a strong opinion without more information.
Keezer noted that the applicant had a deadline of March 27, just two days away, requiring an immediate decision. Zisson expressed strong opposition after reviewing the proposal, specifically objecting to the depiction of a wounded or dying soldier in the bottom right foreground of the painting holding a hot dog, stating he would vote no. Grader agreed it was a hard no, suggesting the company could send their message without using this particular image.
Singer called for a motion to deny the request from K Foods to use the image of the Spirit of ’76 in their digital media campaign. The motion was made and seconded.
Marblehead Little Theater Chalk Stencil Request (Link: 02:50:00 – 02:55:00)
Singer explained that there was ambiguity in the request from the Marblehead Little Theater regarding dates, with the letter indicating April 10th but Lisa having responded that it was April 21st. She questioned whether this was a one-day promotional event using sidewalk chalk on public ways, similar to race markings that must be removed by the end of the day, or if it was intended for a longer duration spanning from April 10th to the 21st, which would be 11 days.
Singer noted that the request involved six-foot tall rabbit stencils to be placed near the Marblehead Theater, with the opening night being April 10th. A committee member suggested the stencils would likely need to be in place for a few days before the opening to grab attention and serve as advertising. The discussion indicated the show runs for two weekends, suggesting the chalk markings might be needed for that duration.
Singer made a motion to approve the request from Lisa Finl from Marblehead Little Theater to stencil rabbit feet in wash-away chalk on the public way on Pleasant, School Street, and Atlantic Avenue to promote the play Harvey on April 10th, 2026, for a period of two weeks, subject to the markings being removed at the end of that period at no cost to the town. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Contract Change Order and Licensing Matters (Link: 02:55:00 – 02:58:00)
Keezer explained that a change order was needed for the Entity Park project involving granite blocks that had been installed and were creating a tripping hazard in a high traffic area. The project organizers determined that the curb needed to be removed, requiring a $5,000 change order with Rock Hill Construction. He clarified that it involved larger granite blocks rather than traditional curbing.
Singer made a motion to approve change order number eight for contract 2024077 between the town and Rock Hill Construction and authorize the chair to sign the contract on behalf of the board. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Singer then addressed a one-day liquor license request for the Marblehead Festival of the Arts at Fort Sewall on June 27, 2026. She made a motion to approve the request for beer and wine only from 5pm to 7pm, subject to standard conditions including delivery of the required $50 fee, proof of authorized alcohol purchase source, proper storage and disposal procedures in accordance with Terminal 138 requirements, liquor liability insurance, no overnight alcohol storage on premises, and alcohol to be purchased from Marnetti’s distributors. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Singer noted a letter of interest regarding the Cultural Council, mentioning multiple openings due to large member capacity. She suggested setting a deadline of April 3rd for applications with review on April 8th, and the board agreed to this timeline. Singer then moved to select board announcements, noting there were none, and a committee member made a motion to adjourn.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.