2021-09-13: Special Town Meeting

Click timestamps in the text to watch that part of the meeting recording.

Swampscott Special Town Meeting Analysis: September 13, 2021

Section 1: Agenda

  • 0:00:38 Call to Order & Opening Procedures
    • Waiting for Quorum
    • Instructions for Town Meeting Members (Renaming in Zoom)
    • Instructions for Visitors (Renaming in Zoom)
  • 0:13:34 Announcements
    • PorchFest (Ms. Scheer)
    • Veterans Center Event & Fundraiser (Mr. Blonder)
  • 0:16:16 Formal Call to Order & Quorum Confirmation
  • 0:16:49 Swearing-in of New Town Meeting Members (Town Clerk)
  • 0:17:29 Procedural Motion: Continue Meeting Virtually (Zoom)
    • Motion, Second, Vote
  • 0:19:54 Explanation of Virtual Meeting Procedures (Voting, Reactions, Speaking, Points of Order, Amendments, Debate Rules)
  • 0:28:34 Article 1 – Authorization To Impose Deed Restriction (Hadley School)
    • Motion by Select Board Member Duffy
    • Finance Committee Report (No Position)
    • Presentation by Town Planner O’Connell (Hadley Reuse Committee Scenarios)
    • Debate
    • Motion to Indefinitely Postpone (Ms. Goodman) - Fails
    • Further Debate
    • Motion to Call the Previous Question (Mr. Iannacone) - Passes
    • Vote on Main Motion - Passes
  • 1:00:28 Moderator Recusal & Appointment of Moderator Pro Tem
    • Moderator McClung steps down due to involvement with School Building Committee
    • Swearing-in of Moderator Pro Tem Jeff Goldman
  • 1:01:58 Article 2 – Appropriation For New Elementary School and Acquisition of Necessary Easements
    • Motion by Finance Committee Chair Dorsey (with amendment clarifying Town Election contingency)
    • Finance Committee Presentation (Favorable Recommendation, Financial Details)
    • Superintendent of Schools Angelakis Presentation (Educational Rationale, Process)
    • School Building Committee Video Presentation (Process, Site Selection, Design)
    • Swampscott Education Association Statement (Support for Project)
    • Public/Town Meeting Member Debate (Arguments for/against project, cost, site, traffic, environment, equity, process, eminent domain)
    • Attempted Motion to Amend/Bifurcate Article 2 (Mr. Demento/UU Church) - Withdrawn after discussion
    • Motion to Call the Previous Question (Mr. Perry) - Passes
    • Vote on Main Motion (as amended by FinCom) - Passes
  • 3:02:16 Motion to Adjourn
    • Motion, Second, Adjournment

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Michael McClung (Town Moderator): [Speaker 1] (Initially, until recusal at 1:00:28)
  • Joanna Scheer (Recharts Representative/Resident): [Speaker 15] (Announcing PorchFest; Tag potentially reused later)
  • Jeffrey Blonder (DAV Commander/Resident): [Speaker 22] (Announcing Veterans event; Tag potentially reused later)
  • Susan Duplin (Town Clerk): [Speaker 28] (Swearing in members)
  • Suzanne Wright (Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, School Building Committee Chair): [Speaker 10] (Made motion to use Zoom, Presented SBC video)
  • Neil Duffy (Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member, Select Board Member): [Speaker 19] (Presented Article 1)
  • Tim Dorsey (Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, Finance Committee Chair): [Speaker 3] (Presented FinCom position on Art 1, Presented Art 2 motion & FinCom report)
  • Molly O’Connell (Senior Town Planner): [Speaker 7] (Presented Hadley Reuse Committee findings)
  • Resident/Town Meeting Member (Name not stated, potentially Ms. Goodman based on context): [Speaker 26] (Moved indefinite postponement of Art 1)
  • Charlie Patsios (Resident/Town Meeting Member, likely): [Speaker 4] (Commented on Art 1 process/lease term; Tag reused for Goldman)
  • Andrew Somalis (Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 12] (Commented on Art 1 timing/scope, Spoke against Art 2)
  • Rev. Cherry Farber-Robertson (Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 20] (Point of order on Art 1 postponement debate, Question on Art 1 affordable housing; Tag potentially reused later)
  • Elizabeth Pappalardo (Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 27] (Questioned Art 1 implications, Argued for open space option)
  • Larry Beaupre (Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, Hadley Reuse Committee Member): [Speaker 24] (Explained rationale for Art 1 timing)
  • Ticia Vassilio (Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, Board of Assessors Member): [Speaker 29] (Argued against Art 1 based on financial impact/timing)
  • Kim Martin-Epstein (Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 21] (Argued for Art 1 based on prior Town Meeting direction, Point of order clarifying Art 2 amendment intent)
  • Wayne Spritz (Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 6] (Commented on FinCom’s neutral stance on Art 1; Tag potentially reused later)
  • Mr. Iannacone (Town Meeting Member, Name stated): [Speaker 30] (Called question on Art 1; Tag likely generic/reused)
  • Jeff Goldman (Moderator Pro Tem): [Speaker 4] (Assumed Moderator role at 1:00:45; Tag previously used by C. Patsios)
  • Pam Angelakis (Superintendent of Schools): [Speaker 8] (Presented educational rationale for Art 2, Responded to questions/comments)
  • Katie Porter Roberts (Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Swampscott Education Association Rep, SBC Member): [Speaker 9] (Presented SEA support for Art 2)
  • Elizabeth Gallo (Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 25] (Asked clarifying questions on Art 2 cost figures)
  • Jaron Landon (Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 5] (Presented arguments against Art 2, focusing on process history, cost, class size, ranking, safety, open space)
  • David Grishman (Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Select Board Member): [Speaker 11] (Argued strongly in favor of Art 2)
  • Tom Driscoll (Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 23] (Argued focus should be putting Art 2 on ballot for town-wide vote)
  • Angel Fagundo (Precinct 5 Resident): [Speaker 18] (Argued against Art 2 - cost, blasting, operating expenses, size, MSBA funding rationale, safety/traffic)
  • Mary Ann Hartman (Precinct 1 Town Meeting Member, Middle School Nurse, Board of Health Chair): [Speaker 13] (Argued strongly for Art 2 based on current facility inadequacies, particularly health/safety)
  • Eric Backman (Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 16] (Argued against Art 2 - environmental impact on Stanley site/UU property, cost concerns, educational philosophy)
  • Peter Spilios (Precinct 2 Town Meeting Member, Select Board Chair): [Speaker 2] (Answered question on Art 2 cost structure, Responded to environmental concerns, Argued against Art 2 amendment, Explained easement details/process)
  • Ryan Hale (Resident, Capital Improvement Committee Member, Renewable Energy Committee Chair, SBC Sustainability Subcommittee Member): [Speaker 17] (Argued for Art 2 based on environmental/sustainability benefits)
  • Gino Demento (Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 14] (Proposed amendment to bifurcate Art 2 regarding UU Church easement, later withdrew motion)
  • Scott Burke (Precinct 6 Town Meeting Member, School Building Committee Member): [Speaker 6] (Argued strongly for Art 2, referencing 2014 vote history and consequences of inaction; Note: Tag potentially reused from W. Spritz)
  • Doreen Hodgkin (Precinct 5 Town Meeting Member, UU Church Task Force Member): [Speaker 15] (Argued against Art 2 focusing on eminent domain cost/process concerning UU Church; Note: Tag potentially reused from J. Scheer)
  • Jerry Perry (Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 22] (Called question on Art 2; Note: Tag potentially reused from J. Blonder)

(Note: Several speaker tags ([Speaker 4], [Speaker 6], [Speaker 15], [Speaker 20], [Speaker 22], [Speaker 30]) appear to be reused for different individuals during the meeting, or represent generic tags. Identifications above are based on self-identification or strong contextual clues during the specific speaking turn.)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Opening & Preliminaries (0:00:38 - 0:28:34)

  • The Town Moderator, Michael McClung, convened the virtual Special Town Meeting, guiding members through Zoom renaming procedures while awaiting a quorum.
  • Announcements were made regarding Swampscott PorchFest 0:13:36 and a Veterans Center event/fundraiser 0:14:42.
  • A quorum was confirmed 0:16:16.
  • The Town Clerk, Susan Duplin, swore in newly appointed Town Meeting members 0:16:49.
  • A motion by Town Meeting Member Suzanne Wright to continue the meeting via the Zoom platform was made 0:18:23, seconded, and approved by a vote of 247 yes to 14 no 0:19:47.
  • Moderator McClung reviewed virtual meeting procedures, including voting methods, seconding motions, raising hands, points of order (using the ‘slow down’ button), amendment submission, debate time limits (10 minutes per member, twice per topic), and the motion to call the previous question (requiring a 2/3 vote to end debate) 0:19:54.

2. Article 1: Authorization To Impose Deed Restriction (Hadley School) (0:28:34 - 1:00:28)

  • Select Board Member Neil Duffy moved favorable action on Article 1, authorizing the Select Board to place a deed restriction on the Hadley School property to prevent future market-rate housing development, contingent on Article 2 passing and the subsequent debt exclusion vote succeeding 0:28:38. He framed it as fulfilling a prior Town Meeting directive and providing assurance regarding the site’s future use.
  • Finance Committee Chair Tim Dorsey reported that the Finance Committee took no position on Article 1 0:30:53, citing the lack of financial analysis on the implications of precluding market-rate housing, while also not wishing to imply negative consequences by recommending postponement.
  • Senior Town Planner Molly O’Connell presented the findings of the Hadley Elementary School Reuse Advisory Committee 0:32:47, outlining the committee’s process, community engagement, and three recommended non-market-rate reuse scenarios (Mixed-Use Commercial, Affordable Housing, Hospitality) developed based on a Town Meeting charge to exclude market-rate housing.
  • A Town Meeting Member (identified contextually as Ms. Goodman) moved to indefinitely postpone Article 1 0:41:15, arguing it was irresponsible to vote without a Finance Committee financial recommendation and set a dangerous precedent. The motion was seconded.
  • Debate on the postponement motion included points about the timing relative to Article 2 (Mr. Somalis 0:44:04), the Select Board viewing it as a non-financial/zoning-like article (Member Duffy 0:45:23), and clarification that the vote was only on postponement (Rev. Farber-Robertson 0:46:25).
  • The motion to indefinitely postpone Article 1 failed by a vote of 68 yes to 200 no 0:49:09.
  • Debate resumed on the original motion. Points raised included clarification on affordable/senior housing counting towards 40B limits (Rev. Farber-Robertson 0:49:21), desire to see an open space scenario explored (Ms. Pappalardo 0:50:03), the rationale for addressing the deed restriction before the school vote (Mr. Beaupre 0:51:21), concerns about foregoing potential tax revenue (Ms. Vassilio 0:53:15), reinforcing the article’s intent based on prior Town Meeting direction (Ms. Martin-Epstein 0:54:26), and critique of FinCom’s lack of financial guidance (Mr. Spritz 0:56:08).
  • Town Meeting Member Iannacone moved to call the previous question 0:57:02, which was seconded and passed by a vote of 254 yes to 19 no 0:58:33, ending debate.
  • The main motion for Article 1 (authorizing the deed restriction) passed by a vote of 229 yes to 50 no (meeting the 2/3 requirement implicitly assumed or stated by Moderator) 0:59:54.

3. Moderator Change & Article 2 Preliminaries (1:00:28 - 1:03:30)

  • Moderator McClung recused himself from moderating Article 2 due to his service on the School Building Committee 1:00:28.
  • Jeff Goldman was sworn in as Moderator Pro Tem by the Town Clerk 1:00:45.
  • Moderator Pro Tem Goldman introduced Article 2 regarding the appropriation for the new elementary school project at the Stanley site.

4. Article 2: Appropriation For New Elementary School and Acquisition of Necessary Easements (1:01:58 - 3:02:16)

  • Finance Committee Chair Tim Dorsey moved favorable action on Article 2 for $97,461,523, with an amendment clarifying the contingency upon an affirmative town election vote 1:02:40. The motion was seconded.
  • Chair Dorsey presented the Finance Committee’s rationale for support 1:03:30, highlighting prudent funding strategies (level debt, use of reserves), favorable timing (low interest rates, state aid ~$34M, available reserves), and positioning the town for future investments. He noted costs to manage, including the uncertain UU Church easement value (budgeted within the total) and estimated increased operating costs (~1% of school budget, deemed manageable within typical increases). He presented the estimated maximum annual tax impact ($300 for median home, $58.09 per $100k assessed value).
  • Superintendent Pam Angelakis presented the educational case 1:13:50, emphasizing the need to replace deficient buildings and achieve educational goals (equity via district alignment, improved student placement, small learning neighborhoods, reduced primary class sizes, resource efficiency, teacher collaboration) with the proposed K-4 twin school model.
  • A video presentation from School Building Committee (SBC) Chair Suzanne Wright detailed the SBC’s multi-year process 1:14:33, including member composition, community engagement, goals (education, site/traffic, sustainability, community), site evaluation (Stanley chosen over Hadley/Middle School based on traffic, safety, environment), and the K-4 configuration rationale and design overview.
  • Swampscott Education Association Representative Katie Porter Roberts delivered a statement of strong support 1:26:29, emphasizing benefits for learning conditions, equity (resource consolidation, demographics), accessibility (ADA compliance), and safety (building security, environment).
  • Extensive debate followed, featuring numerous Town Meeting members and residents:
    • Arguments Against: Concerns about scale/character, equity (removing neighborhood schools), reduced playspace, student disruption during construction, cost uncertainties (UU easement valuation gap $82.5k vs $6-8M, blasting, traffic mitigation), tax impact, developing green space, traffic/safety issues (especially Forest Ave egress), comparison to 2014 proposal/process, questioning MSBA funding necessity/alternatives, desire for smaller schools/renovations, impact on town rankings/future investment in teaching, specific environmental impact on UU site/vernal pond (Mr. Somalis 1:34:17, Ms. Landon 1:46:04, Mr. Fagundo 2:06:52, Mr. Backman 2:15:09, Ms. Hodgkin 2:53:40).
    • Arguments For: Need for modern facilities, inadequacy/age of current schools (esp. health/safety aspects like ventilation, ADA), educational benefits (equity, collaboration), opportunity presented by MSBA funding (~$34M grant), thorough vetting process by SBC, support from educators/town bodies, positive impact on real estate values, importance of investing in infrastructure, negative consequences of inaction (delay, losing state funding cycle, difficulty attracting professional firms for future projects), sustainability benefits (all-electric, geothermal), addressing past “kicking the can” (Ms. Dombowski 1:38:56, Mr. Grishman 1:59:06, Ms. Hartman 2:10:35, Mr. Hale 2:21:09, Mr. Burke 2:44:13).
    • Procedural/Clarifying Points: Questions on total cost vs. town share (Ms. Gallo 1:40:55), clarification that Town Meeting vote enables a later town-wide ballot vote (Mr. Driscoll 2:05:00), responses on MSBA process/reimbursement (Mr. Spilios 1:43:41), response to specific points raised against (Supt. Angelakis 1:57:16), response on environmental review process (Mr. Spilios 2:19:03).
  • Town Meeting Member Gino Demento proposed an amendment, requested by the UU Church, to bifurcate Article 2, separating the school funding vote from the easement acquisition vote 2:24:56.
  • Select Board Chair Peter Spilios argued strongly against the amendment 2:29:33, stating it was effectively a “poison pill” as the MSBA grant was explicitly contingent on securing the easement access shown in the approved plan, and the amendment removed the funding mechanism for the easement. He detailed the easement scope (primarily using existing parking lot) and the town’s commitment to fair negotiation or eminent domain process, outlining concessions offered to the UU Church on hours, lighting, and signage.
  • Following Chair Spilios’s characterization of the amendment as a “poison pill,” Mr. Demento withdrew his motion with the consent of the body 2:42:30.
  • Town Meeting Member Jerry Perry moved to call the previous question 2:56:52, which was seconded and passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 254 yes to 19 no 2:59:52, ending debate on Article 2.
  • The main motion for Article 2 (appropriating $97,461,523 for the school project and authorizing easement acquisition, subject to a town-wide election) passed by a vote of 244 yes to 39 no 3:02:16, meeting the required 2/3 majority.

5. Adjournment (3:02:16)

  • A motion to adjourn was made, seconded, and the meeting was adjourned.

Section 4: Executive Summary

This Special Town Meeting addressed two critical articles related to Swampscott school facilities, resulting in key decisions paving the way for a new elementary school while seeking to manage the future of the vacated Hadley School property.

Hadley School Future Use Restricted (0:28:34 - 1:00:28) Town Meeting voted decisively (229-50) to authorize the Select Board to place a deed restriction on the Hadley School property. This restriction prevents the site from being used for market-rate housing development, should the property be transferred from the School Department following the construction of a new elementary school. This action, presented by Select Board Member Neil Duffy 0:28:38, aimed to fulfill a prior Town Meeting request and assure voters concerned about potential overdevelopment at the prominent location. While the Finance Committee took no official stance due to the lack of specific financial analysis 0:30:53, the Reuse Committee’s presentation highlighted potential non-market rate options like mixed-use commercial, affordable housing, or hospitality 0:32:47. Opponents argued against voting without financial data 0:41:15 or sought to preserve the option value 0:53:15, but the majority supported solidifying the restriction. Significance: This vote formally removes market-rate housing as an option for Hadley, constraining future redevelopment possibilities but potentially easing some resident concerns linked to the new school project.

New Elementary School Project Approved (1:01:58 - 3:02:16) The main event was the approval of Article 2, authorizing $97,461,523 for designing, constructing, and equipping a new K-4 twin elementary school at the Stanley School site, including acquiring necessary easements. The measure passed overwhelmingly (244-39), exceeding the required two-thirds majority. This appropriation is contingent on a subsequent affirmative town-wide debt exclusion vote (scheduled for Oct 19th).

  • Financials: The Finance Committee recommended approval 1:03:30, citing ~$34M in anticipated state (MSBA) aid, reducing the town’s share to ~$64M. They outlined a funding plan using level debt and reserves to mitigate tax impact (est. max $300/year for median home). Uncertainty remains around the final cost of the required easement from the Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church, with significant disagreement on valuation ($82.5k town offer vs. $6-8M church estimate 2:53:40), though the town stated the cost is budgeted within the total appropriation. Increased operating costs are also anticipated but deemed manageable 1:08:10.
  • Rationale: Proponents, including the Superintendent 1:13:50, School Building Committee 1:14:33, Swampscott Education Association 1:26:29, and Select Board members [1:59:06, 2:29:33], stressed the urgent need to replace aging, inadequate facilities, the educational benefits of equity and consolidation, the favorable financial opportunity with state aid, and the extensive multi-year planning process.
  • Concerns & Debate: Opposition voiced concerns about the project’s cost and tax burden [1:34:17, 2:06:52], the specific K-4 model versus neighborhood schools 1:46:04, traffic and safety impacts at the Stanley site 1:55:04, environmental impacts (especially related to the UU Church easement 2:15:09), the contentious eminent domain process for the easement 2:53:40, and the perceived loss of open/play space 1:34:17. An attempt to separate the easement vote from the main school funding via amendment was withdrawn after the Select Board Chair termed it a “poison pill” potentially jeopardizing MSBA funding 2:43:28.
  • Significance: This vote represents a major commitment by Town Meeting towards consolidating elementary education into a single, modern facility. It authorizes significant borrowing and empowers the town to pursue the controversial easement acquisition from the UU Church. The project’s final approval now rests with the town’s voters in the October 19th election.

Procedural Notes: The meeting saw active debate, particularly on Article 2. Procedural motions to end debate (‘call the question’) were successfully used on both articles [0:57:02, 2:56:52], indicating a majority desire to move to a vote after substantial discussion.

Section 5: Analysis

This Special Town Meeting was characterized by a focused agenda, culminating in decisive, albeit debated, actions on the future of Swampscott’s elementary school infrastructure.

Article 1 Dynamics: The debate on the Hadley deed restriction revealed a tension between proactive planning based on community sentiment (as argued by the Select Board 0:28:59) and financial prudence (as highlighted by the Finance Committee’s neutrality 0:30:53 and opponents’ arguments [0:41:15, 0:53:15]). The eventual passage (229-50) suggests Town Meeting prioritized locking in the exclusion of market-rate housing, perhaps viewing it as a necessary reassurance linked to the larger school project decision, over waiting for detailed financial impact studies of that specific exclusion. The argument that this fulfilled a prior Town Meeting directive 0:54:26 appeared persuasive to the majority.

Article 2 Dynamics & Arguments: The lengthy debate on Article 2 showcased a clear, though numerically unequal, divide within the community.

  • Proponents’ Effectiveness: Supporters (Superintendent, SBC, FinCom, SEA, Select Board members, some residents/TM members) presented a unified front emphasizing urgency, opportunity, and thoroughness. Key effective arguments centered on:
    • The poor condition of existing schools and the need for modern, equitable, accessible facilities (powerfully articulated by educator Katie Roberts 1:26:29 and nurse Mary Ann Hartman 2:10:35).
    • The significant state funding opportunity ($34M MSBA grant) making the project financially opportune 1:03:30.
    • The multi-year, public vetting process by the School Building Committee 1:14:33.
    • The potential negative consequences of further delay, including losing state funding priority and difficulty attracting future professional project teams (argued forcefully by SBC member Scott Burke 2:44:13).
    • The Finance Committee’s structured plan to manage the debt burden 1:03:30.
  • Opponents’ Effectiveness: Opponents raised valid concerns, effectively tapping into anxieties about cost, change, and local impact. Key arguments included:
    • The significant cost and uncertain final price tag, particularly the vast discrepancy in the UU Church easement valuation [1:34:17, 2:06:52, 2:53:40]. This point likely resonated but was partially countered by FinCom’s assertion it was budgeted for.
    • Traffic, safety, and environmental impacts at the Stanley site, especially concerning the Forest Ave egress and UU property [1:55:04, 2:15:09]. Select Board Chair Spilios attempted to mitigate this by detailing the limited physical scope of the easement 2:31:42.
    • The perceived loss of neighborhood school character and concerns about the large scale of the consolidated school [1:34:17, 1:46:04].
    • Questions about the process and alternatives, referencing past surveys and task forces 1:46:04. Supt. Angelakis directly refuted some historical interpretations 1:57:16.
  • The UU Easement Issue: This emerged as a major point of friction. The attempt to bifurcate the vote 2:24:56, initiated at the UU Church’s request, was effectively shut down by the Select Board Chair’s “poison pill” argument 2:29:33, framing the easement as non-negotiable for MSBA funding and the project itself. This demonstrated the administration’s firm stance on the necessity of the chosen site plan and access route, while leaving the financial resolution highly contentious. The church representative’s statement highlighted the unresolved financial gap and perceived lack of town appraisal work 2:53:40, suggesting significant potential for future conflict or legal costs, despite the town’s stated commitment to fairness 2:31:42.

Procedural Control: The successful use of motions to “call the previous question” on both articles [0:57:02, 2:56:52], passing overwhelmingly each time, signaled that while debate was permitted, the majority was ultimately ready to proceed to a vote and unwilling to entertain prolonged discussion or further amendments (as seen with the withdrawal of the Demento motion). This indicates strong organizational support or a clear majority consensus favoring the proposed actions heading into the meeting.

Overall: The meeting demonstrated Town Meeting functioning as intended – debating significant town issues with passionate arguments from various perspectives. However, the outcomes reflect a clear majority mandate (at the Town Meeting level) to proceed with the administration-backed plan for a new consolidated elementary school at the Stanley site, despite vocal opposition and unresolved specifics, particularly regarding the UU Church easement costs. The large margins of victory on both articles suggest strong alignment among the voting Town Meeting members in favor of these significant capital decisions, setting the stage for the crucial town-wide vote on the school funding.