Agenda
Public Health & Safety · from the Town's website · released Jul 29, 2026 · 6 pages · 86 KB
open the file ↗ · original at the source ↗
Winthrop Board or Committee Public Body Posting Members Vice President Swope Councilor Reardon Councilor Finn Name of Public Body: Public Health & Safety Committee Date and Time of Meeting: Tuesday, July 29, 2026 4:00 PM Location of Meeting: Harvey Hearing Room AGENDA Roll Call Discussion: Hazard Mitigation Update Adjournment The listing of matters is those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. Please note that a quorum of the Town Council may be present at this meeting/event. However, no formal Town Council deliberation or action will be taken TOWN OF WINTHROP — TOWN COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Anthony Marino, Town Manager; Martin Pillsbury, Project Manager, Metropolitan Area Planning Council FROM: Suzanne Swope, Vice President, Winthrop Town Council; Chair, Committee on Public Health, Safety and Public Works CC: James Letterie, Council President; Denise Quist, Town Clerk; Winthrop Hazard Mitigation Planning Team DATE: July 29, 2026 RE: Pre-Adoption Errata and Consistency Punch List — Winthrop Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2026 Update (“FEMA Approval Pending Adoption” draft dated June 28, 2026) The 2026 Update of the Winthrop Hazard Mitigation Plan is a substantively strong document, and I appreciate the work of the Planning Team and MAPC in bringing it to “Approval Pending Adoption” status. Before the plan comes to the Town Council for adoption, I am requesting a consolidated errata pass to resolve the items below. Items in Part A are substantive discrepancies that affect the content of the mitigation strategy; Part B addresses internal dating and consistency; Part C is a list of typographical corrections. Page references are to the printed page numbers of the June 28, 2026, draft. PART A — SUBSTANTIVE DISCREPANCIES (RESOLUTION REQUESTED PRIOR TO ADOPTION) 1. Structural retrofit program — contradictory disposition. The measure “Implement a structural retrofit program for town’s priority at risk buildings” appears in the Executive Summary’s list of recommended measures (p. 3) and in Section 7’s list of measures “to be Retained in the 2025 Plan Update” (p. 149), but it also appears in Section 7’s list of measures “to be Deleted” (p. 150), and Table 55 (item JJ) marks it “Delete from 2025 plan.” It does not appear in the Section 8 strategy or in Tables 56–57. Please resolve the disposition in all four locations. If deletion stands, the rationale in Table 55 (newer buildings built to seismic code) does not address flood retrofit of the older critical facilities identified in Table 50, and the Team may wish to reconsider scope rather than disposition. 2. “Assess vulnerability to severe winds” — dropped without documentation. Table 55 (item Z) marks this 2015 measure “Keep in 2025 plan,” and it is listed among retained measures in Section 7 (p. 149) and in the Executive Summary (p. 3). It does not appear in the Section 8 strategy or Tables 56–57. Please either add it to the strategy tables or document its deletion consistently. 3. Repetitive loss figures do not reconcile. The narrative (p. 46) states the 11 Severe Repetitive Loss properties “have had 11 losses totaling $654,231,” while Table 16 (p. 47) shows 63 SRL losses with claim payments summing to $654,157 ($588,955 building + $65,202 contents). The narrative’s grand total of $4,426,646 likewise differs from the sum of Table 16 ($4,425,929). Please reconcile the narrative to the MEMA source data; these figures will be cited in future FMA and CRS submissions. 4. Goal count error. The Executive Summary (p. 2) states the Team “endorsed the addition of five new goals (#10 – 15 below)”; the plan contains fourteen goals, with new goals numbered 10–14 (Section 5, p. 119). Please correct. 5. Table 57 funding sources — external programs not assigned. Although the abbreviation key preceding Table 57 (p. 167) defines FEMA BRIC, FMA, and HMGP, the DEP SRF, MVP, and CZM Coastal Resilience Grants, nearly every measure is assigned only “Winthrop General Fund / Public Capital Investment.” Most notably, Measure I (Morton Street drainage improvements, estimated at $13 million with a completed Woods Hole Group feasibility study) is assigned to the General Fund. A project of that magnitude is only feasible with state and federal mitigation funding, and the Town’s 153 repetitive loss properties make the flood drainage projects competitive candidates for FMA in particular. Please revise the Potential Funding Sources column, in consultation with MEMA and DCR as referenced on p. 167, to identify realistic external programs for each High-priority measure, and verify the current status of the federal BRIC program before it is cited. 6. Measure D (Community Rating System) misclassified. Table 57 classifies the CRS application as a “Structural Project” assigned to Winthrop DPW. CRS participation is an administrative/prevention activity; recommend reclassifying the Mitigation Type and assigning implementation responsibility to the floodplain administrator and/or Planning, with DPW support. 7. Missing cost estimates in Table 57. Measures J (Girdlestone/Tileston), K (Pico Avenue), T (Micro Grid study), U (Coordinated Access and Evacuation), W (Stormwater Fee), and Y (Invasive Species Management) carry qualitative cost ratings but no dollar estimates. Please supply order-of- magnitude figures or note “TBD pending scoping” explicitly. 8. Adoption placeholders. Section 9 (p. 173) contains three “[ADD DATE]” placeholders, and Appendix F is a placeholder for adoption documentation. Please confirm the workflow for completing these upon Council adoption and FEMA approval. PART B — DATING AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY 1. Plan-year references. The cover and running headers identify the document as the “2026 Update”; the body text refers throughout to the “2025 plan update” and “2025 Hazard Mitigation planning cycle”; Section 7 (p. 148) refers once to the “Hazard Mitigation Plan 2024 Update”; and the running header beginning at p. 113 reads “DRAFT 2025 UPDATE.” Please standardize on a single designation. 2. Table 55 title. The List of Tables and the Table 55 title reference “Mitigation Measures from the 2019 Plan”; all other references, and Section 7 itself, identify the prior plan as the 2015 plan (FEMA-approved August 3, 2015). Please correct. 3. Executive Summary duplication. The opening paragraph of the Executive Summary (p. 1) is repeated nearly verbatim under the “Planning Process” subheading immediately following. Recommend deleting the duplicate. 4. List of Tables / List of Figures. Table 23 is shown at p. 61, out of sequence with Table 22 (p. 62); Figure 49 (p. 122) has no title in the List of Figures; Figures 33 and 34 carry identical titles (“Summer 2021 Temperatures, Boston Area”). Please verify pagination and captions after the errata pass. PART C — TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTIONS The following corrections are requested (representative list; a full proofread is recommended): • p. 2 (Executive Summary): “Massachusetts Coastal Flook Risk Model” → “Flood Risk Model.” • Acknowledgements: “Board of Appels Chair” → “Board of Appeals Chair”; “Deputy Chief of Policed” → “Deputy Chief of Police”; one Team member is listed surname -first (“Homeyer, Kristen”). • p. 119 (Section 5): stray colons in goal numbering (“10:”, “11:” … “14:”); Executive Summary shows “14.:”. • p. 160 (Section 8 heading): “FLOODING FROM PRCIPITATION” → “PRECIPITATION.” • p. 161 (Measure T): “T..” double period. • p. 162 (Measure U): “Collaborate with the Cit of Boston” → “City of Boston.” • p. 163: “Open Space and Recreation Plam” → “Plan.” • p. 165 (Table 56): “Bayou Stret” → “Bayou Street”; Measure N overall priority rendered “L:ow”; “Muli- Hazards” → “Multi -Hazards”; “Geologic-Hazards” stray hyphen. • p. 168 (Table 57, Measure D): “Saff Costs” → “Staff Costs.” • Table 55 (multiple pages): column header “RECOMMENTED MITIGATON” → “RECOMMENDED MITIGATION.” • p. 174 (Section 9): “The Local Tam will assess” → “The Local Team.” • p. 1–4 and elsewhere: scattered items — “which prepared in 2005” (missing “was”); “the Town’ hazard mitigation strategy” (missing “s”); “Open Space and Recreation Plan, ,” (doubled comma); “You Tube” → “YouTube.” None of these items requires reopening the plan’s analysis, and I do not anticipate that they would delay the adoption schedule. Perhaps the MAPC could provide a corrected final draft, or a written response identifying any items the Team believes should stand as drafted, in advance of the Council’s adoption vote. Respectfully, Suzanne Swope Vice President, Winthrop Town Council Chair, Committee on Public Health, Safety and Public Works COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND PUBLIC WORKS Prepared Questions — Review of the Winthrop Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2026 Update For discussion with MAPC, the Town Manager, and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Funding and Implementation 1. The Morton Street drainage package is estimated at $13 million with a completed feasibility study, yet Table 57 assigns it to the General Fund. What is the grant strategy for this project — FMA, HMGP, MVP Action Grant, or a combination — and who owns the application calendar? Given 153 repetitive loss properties townwide, has staff assessed our competitiveness under FMA, which prioritizes repetitive-loss mitigation? 2. The plan cites the federal BRIC program as a funding source. What is staff’s current understanding of BRIC’s status, and if it is unavailable, which measures were counting on it and what replaces it? 3. Backflow preventers are installed on 7 of 63 Boston Harbor outfalls. What is the unit cost, the installation schedule for the remaining 56 within this plan cycle, and the annual budget request we should expect in the Capital Investment Plan? 4. The Yirrell Beach seawall extension to Deer Island has been carried since before 2015, and FEMA previously funded only the associated storm drains. What has changed in the project’s fundability, and what is the coordination status with MWRA and the City of Boston? 5. Lewis Lake: the tide gate is complete, but the plan notes the lake is only inches deep from siltation and “needs to be dredged or it will eventually fill in.” Is dredging scoped and funded within measure B, or is it a separate unbudgeted project? Community Rating System 6. What CRS class is staff targeting, what is the estimated NFIP premium reduction for Winthrop policyholders at that class, and what staffing does the application require? Table 57 caps implementation at $20,000 per year — is that realistic, and should responsibility sit with the floodplain administrator rather than DPW? Critical Facilities 7. Table 50 places the Senior Center and the Middle/High School in the FEMA AE zone and in projected sea level rise inundation areas, and a power substation in the Bayou Street local flood area. The 2015 structural retrofit measure was deleted on seismic grounds. What is the plan for flood protection of these specific facilities, and should a facility-level floodproofing measure be restored to the strategy? 8. The plan recommends completing emergency generators at the new Fire Station and Town Hall/EOC (measure S). What is the timeline, and does the proposed micro grid study (measure T) duplicate or complement that work? Evacuation and Regional Coordination 9. Measure U calls for coordinated access and evacuation planning with DCR, MassDOT, and Boston, reflecting our dual-egress vulnerability. Have those conversations begun, what is the deliverable — a signed protocol, a study, an exercise — and how does Point Shirley access to Deer Island factor in? 10. How will the North Suffolk Office of Resilience and Sustainability be used to advance the regional measures in this plan, and are Revere and Chelsea sequencing any shoreline projects we should be coordinating with? Environmental Justice and Public Engagement 11. The plan identifies seven Environmental Justice block groups and adopts Goal 11, but no measure in Table 57 is tied to an EJ area, and the public process generated one written comment. How will Goal 11 be operationalized during implementation, and what outreach methods beyond televised Council meetings — surveys, neighborhood sessions, multilingual materials — will be used in the next cycle? Plan Maintenance and Accountability 12. Section 9 provides for an annual Team meeting and a year-three survey, with no quantitative benchmarks. Will staff commit to an annual written progress report to this Committee with measurable indicators — outfalls retrofitted, seawall linear feet completed, grant applications filed and awarded, CRS class — and can that commitment be reflected in the adoption resolution? 13. Section 9 commits to reviewing the plan with ten departments within six months of adoption. Who tracks completion of that integration step, and how will the plan’s recommendations be reflected in the next Capital Investment Plan cycle? 14. Measure W proposes a stormwater fee with mitigation incentives. What is the anticipated timeline for a fee study, and how will it be coordinated with the impervious-surface standards currently under consideration in the zoning amendments before the Planning Board?