2022-05-11: Select Board

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

Swampscott Select Board Meeting Analysis: May 11, 2022

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda followed during the meeting was:

  1. Call to Order & Technical Setup [0:00:00 - 0:01:35] (Implied, dealing with Zoom issues)
  2. Public Comments 0:01:35
    • Comment from Cindy Cavallaro regarding ZBA meeting/Elm Place 0:03:40
  3. Town Administrator Report 0:05:18
    • Update on Earth Removal Permit language
    • Police/Fire hiring diversity progress
    • Library Director search update
    • Recreation calendar updates
    • Police body camera implementation update
    • Senior Center/All Ages activities & electric van grant pursuit
  4. New and Old Business
    • Mosquito Spraying Opt-Out Discussion & Vote (Jeff Vaughan, Public Health Director) 11:55
    • Swampscott for All Ages Committee Restructure Discussion & Vote (Heidi Whear, Bob Powell) 22:15
    • Elementary School Earth Removal Permit Review & Vote 32:41
      • Summary of revisions since last meeting
      • Public Comment (Steve Rosenberg, Tasia Vasiliou) 37:17
      • Board Discussion & Deliberation
      • Vote on Permit
    • Atlantic Bay View Residences (40B) Comment Letter Discussion 1:04:55 - Item Postponed
    • Review of 2022 Annual Town Meeting Warrant 1:28:13
      • Discussion of specific articles (Budget, CBAs, Water/Sewer Transfers, Capital, Citizen Petitions, Climate Action, Indigenous Peoples’ Day)
      • Assignment/discussion of speaking roles
      • Discussion of Article 14 (Zoning) - Tabled for Monday
  5. Votes of the Board
    • Approval of Consent Agenda 1:48:18
      • Minutes from 5/4/22
      • Appointment of Tara Gallagher (Tree Committee)
  6. Select Board Time 1:49:47
    • Member Fletcher announces office hours 1:49:51
    • Members Grishman & Phelan praise Recreation Dept. summer events [1:50:10, 1:50:49]
    • Chair Duffy discusses committee liaison assignments process 1:51:17
    • Chair Duffy reports on Senior Center lunch visit 1:52:40
  7. Scheduling Notes & Moderator Input [1:47:19, 1:47:46] (Interspersed during Warrant review & SB Time)
    • Confirmation of Monday meeting details
    • Clarification on non-Town Meeting Member speaking rights
  8. Adjournment 1:53:46

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • Neal Duffy (Select Board Chair): [Speaker 1]
  • Peter Spellios (Select Board Member): [Speaker 2]
  • Sean Fitzgerald (Town Administrator): [Speaker 3]
  • Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Member): [Speaker 4]
  • Steve Rosenberg (Resident): [Speaker 5]
  • Jeff Vaughn (Public Health Director): [Speaker 6]
  • David Grishman (Select Board Member): [Speaker 7]
  • Tasia Vasiliou (Resident): [Speaker 8]
  • Heidi Whear (Director, Council on Aging / Swampscott for All Ages): [Speaker 9]
  • Bob Powell (Swampscott for All Ages Committee Member/Representative): [Speaker 10]
  • Katie Phelan (Select Board Member): [Speaker 11], [Speaker 16] (Likely, during votes/interjections)
  • Mike Carroll (OPM - Hill International): [Speaker 12] (Primarily during ERP discussion 1:19:54; earlier tech comment 36:56 likely Town IT Staff/Ethan)
  • Diane (Town Staff/Admin Support): [Speaker 13]
  • Cindy Cavallaro (Public Commenter): [Speaker 14] (Note: Tag appears erroneously later during a vote)
  • Michael McClung (Town Moderator): [Speaker 15]
  • Amy O’Connor (Finance Director / Assistant Town Administrator): [Speaker 17]

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Call to Order & Public Comment Chair Neal Duffy called the meeting to order, noting initial technical difficulties with Zoom [0:00:00 - 1:35]. Public comment was opened 1:35. Cindy Cavallaro asked about the prior night’s ZBA meeting regarding the Elm Place project and expressed disappointment with the outcome 3:43. Member Peter Spellios noted the Select Board had previously stated its position and should likely refrain from commenting on an open ZBA matter 4:15.

2. Town Administrator Report 5:18 Town Administrator (TA) Sean Fitzgerald provided updates:

  • Language strengthening owner responsibility was added to the Earth Removal Permit draft.
  • Significant progress was reported in diversifying the Fire Department through recent hires, moving from 100% white male below Chief rank to 90.6% white, 9.4% Black, and 6.2% female 6:18. TA Fitzgerald praised Chiefs Archer and Quesada and the departments for leading change.
  • The Library Board submitted semi-finalists for the Library Director position; interviews are expected soon, with a recommendation anticipated for the Select Board shortly 7:27.
  • The Recreation calendar is being updated with numerous no-cost/low-cost family and youth events for the summer; flyers and website updates are forthcoming 7:54.
  • Progress is being made on implementing police body cameras, with a refined quote received based on systems used by Lynn and other MA municipalities 8:24.
  • The Senior Center is active with events and programs, and the Director is pursuing grants for an electric van 8:47.

3. Mosquito Spraying Opt-Out 11:55 Public Health Director Jeff Vaughn presented a request for the Board to vote to opt out of M.G.L. c. 252, which allows the State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board to conduct aerial or ground spraying for arboviruses (like EEE) without local consent unless an approved opt-out plan is in place 13:40. Vaughn explained that Swampscott has no history of EEE-positive mosquitoes, lacks the primary breeding environment, and typically has low risk. The opt-out requires a Select Board vote confirming consultation with the Board of Health (which occurred May 4th and supported local control), public comment opportunity, and submission of an educational plan by May 27th 16:03. Member David Grishman confirmed the Board of Health supported local control 18:09. TA Fitzgerald reminded residents about reducing standing water 19:50. After confirming public comment was solicited with no takers 21:05, the Board voted unanimously to approve the opt-out.

  • Motion: To opt out of M.G.L. c. 252 regarding state mosquito spraying. Moved by Chair Duffy, seconded by Member Fletcher 20:39.
  • Vote: 5-0, Approved [21:57 - 22:07].

4. Swampscott for All Ages (SFAA) Committee Restructure 22:15 Heidi Whear (Director, Council on Aging) provided updates on Senior Center activities (men’s club, ice cream social, beach party, resource guide, new website, electric van grant pursuit) 23:32. Whear and Bob Powell presented a proposal to restructure the SFAA committee 24:54. The original committee grew to 64 members, making quorums and effective operation difficult. The proposal is to re-establish the committee with 13 members: 2 ex-officio (Senior Center staff, Community Development staff) and 11 appointed members serving staggered 3-year terms 26:35. Each appointed member would ideally chair one of the 8 age-friendly domains. Member Mary Ellen Fletcher questioned if 13 was too large given recent attendance, but Powell explained the structure (2 co-chairs, 8 domain leads) and expressed confidence in recruiting members 28:41. Member Spellios confirmed the standard 30-day public notice for appointments would apply 32:08.

  • Motion: To re-establish the Swampscott for All Ages committee with 13 members (2 ex-officio, 11 appointed) on staggered 3-year terms. Moved by Chair Duffy, seconded by Member Grishman 30:25.
  • Vote: 5-0, Approved [31:48 - 32:03].

5. Elementary School Earth Removal Permit 32:41 Chair Duffy introduced the revised Earth Removal Permit for the new elementary school, summarizing changes made after the previous week’s public hearing: updated claims process, increased pre-blast survey radius (300ft mandatory to 500ft mandatory, with option to request beyond 500ft), DPW/TA determining street sweeping needs, mandatory pre-blast and 30-day follow-up meetings with blasting contractor, PPV set at 2.0, blasting hours revised to 9:00 AM - 3:30 PM, and addition of a warning system requirement 33:40.

  • Public Comment:
    • Steve Rosenberg 37:21 expressed frustration that the revised permit was still not posted online, hindering transparency. He requested postponement for public review and collaboration, advocating for a larger pre-blast survey radius (1000-1500ft), independent survey/claims review, weekly meetings, and better online information dissemination via the official Town website. His comments indicated significant resident concern about process and communication.
    • Tasia Vasiliou 46:53 echoed communication concerns, stressing the neighborhood impact extends far beyond 300ft (traffic, dust, disruption to children) and argued the 500ft radius was insufficient given local ledge geology, also supporting a 1000-1500ft radius. Her remarks emphasized the broader quality-of-life impacts and the need for wider communication.
  • Board Discussion: A detailed discussion followed regarding the permit revisions and resident concerns.
    • Member Fletcher 53:29 shared her research (speaking with OPM Mike Carroll, Braintree officials) and expressed reassurance about project oversight but strongly advocated for extending the guaranteed pre-blast survey radius to 1500ft due to vulnerable fieldstone foundations in the area. She also proposed restricting work hours further (no Saturdays, start at 8 AM).
    • Member Spellios 58:58 criticized the “unforced error” of not posting the permit online but vigorously defended the permit’s overall robustness and the extensive review process by ERAC and SBC. He argued against drastically expanding the survey radius, trusting state regulations (2.0 PPV, 250ft standard radius) and noting Swampscott’s geology wasn’t necessarily unique in requiring such measures. He supported the permit with the 500ft radius + opt-in provision. His comments focused on adherence to standards and process, while acknowledging communication shortcomings.
    • Member Phelan 1:05:01 clarified the existing language allowing requests beyond 500ft and noted Open Meeting Law constraints on responding to group emails.
    • Member Grishman 1:07:06 felt the revisions adequately addressed concerns raised during the public hearing and expressed confidence in the updated permit.
    • TA Fitzgerald 1:09:04 explained the case-by-case review for surveys beyond 500ft, citing budget management but affirming commitment to support residents. He emphasized the addition of direct meetings with contractors to improve communication 1:10:18.
    • A significant exchange occurred between Members Fletcher and Spellios on the survey radius guarantee [1:13:12 - 1:19:47]. Spellios proposed adding a requirement to mail notice to residents from 500-1000ft informing them of the case-by-case request option. Fletcher remained concerned about the lack of a guarantee for homes potentially at risk beyond 500ft. This discussion highlighted a core disagreement on the level of proactive risk mitigation required.
    • Mike Carroll (OPM) 1:19:54 supported the 500ft + notification approach, deeming 1500ft excessive and differentiating project blasting from larger quarry operations.
    • Chair Duffy 1:20:41 agreed with the 500ft + notification compromise, finding it a reasonable balance beyond state requirements.
  • Motion: To approve the revised Earth Removal Permit, incorporating the red-lined changes and adding the requirement for mailed notice to residents within 300-500ft (entitled to survey upon request) and 500-1000ft (informed of option to request survey on case-by-case basis). Moved by Member Spellios, seconded by Member Grishman 1:22:50.
  • Vote: 4-1, Approved [1:23:45 - 1:24:35]. Voting Yes: Phelan, Spellios, Grishman, Duffy. Voting No: Fletcher (citing lack of guaranteed survey up to 1000ft). Member Spellios thanked the ERAC committee for their extensive work 1:24:35.

6. Atlantic Bay View Residences (40B) Comment Letter 1:25:03 Chair Duffy noted this item was postponed as the letter was not ready. Member Grishman encouraged residents to submit comments to Marci Galazka (Community Development) or directly to Michael Busby at MassHousing 1:25:39. TA Fitzgerald confirmed information on submitting comments would be promoted on the town website and newsletter 1:27:42. The Board plans to take up the letter on Monday, May 16th.

7. Review of 2022 Annual Town Meeting Warrant 1:28:13 The Board reviewed key articles, discussing process and potential speaking roles:

  • Articles 2 (Prior Year Bills), 3 (Budget), 5 (Water Transfer), 6 (Sewer Transfer), 7-10 (Capital/Finance): Generally handled by Finance Committee (FinCom) or TA, with Select Board members available for questions. Board discussed Articles 5 & 6 based on info Chair Duffy shared regarding rate impact assumptions; consensus was to follow FinCom’s lead but monitor rate implications 1:34:32.
  • Article 4 (Collective Bargaining Agreements): Motion likely from FinCom, TA Fitzgerald to provide synopsis 1:31:53.
  • Article 12 (Citizen Petition - CPA): Board previously voted indefinite postponement 1:39:10.
  • Article 13 (Citizen Petition - FinCom Appointments): Board previously voted indefinite postponement; a Board member (likely Chair Duffy) will speak against it, explaining the Board’s reasoning despite the petition seeking to give the Board more appointment power 1:39:45. Amy O’Connor noted FinCom also plans to comment 1:40:33.
  • Article 14 (Zoning - Accessory Dwelling Units): Revised language received but not reviewed; discussion deferred to Monday meeting 1:41:21.
  • Article 15 (Climate Action Plan Resolution): Chair Duffy will speak, possibly joined by students/committee members 1:42:11.
  • Article 16 (Indigenous Peoples’ Day): Board supports favorable action. Member Phelan volunteered to speak 1:43:11. Moderator McClung confirmed non-Town Meeting members can speak but not make motions 1:47:46.

8. Consent Agenda 1:48:18

  • Motion: To approve the consent agenda (Minutes 5/4/22, Tara Gallagher appointment to Tree Committee). Moved by Member Grishman, seconded by Member Fletcher 1:49:21.
  • Vote: 5-0, Approved [1:49:30 - 1:49:47].

9. Select Board Time 1:49:47

  • Member Fletcher announced Saturday office hours at the Gazebo 1:49:51.
  • Members Grishman and Phelan praised the Recreation Department’s summer event lineup [1:50:10, 1:50:49].
  • Chair Duffy announced the process for assigning committee liaisons would begin soon via email 1:51:17.
  • Chair Duffy reported positively on his recent lunch visit to the Senior Center and encouraged other members to participate 1:52:40.

10. Adjournment 1:53:46

  • Motion: To adjourn. Moved by Chair Duffy, seconded (implicitly).
  • Vote: 5-0, Approved [1:54:00 - 1:54:12].

Section 4: Executive Summary

This Swampscott Select Board meeting addressed several key issues, most notably advancing the new elementary school project while grappling with resident concerns, preparing for Town Meeting, and handling routine town business.

Elementary School Project Advances Amidst Debate: The Board voted 4-1 to approve the critical Earth Removal Permit for the new elementary school 1:24:35, allowing site preparation, including blasting, to commence. This decision followed significant resident comment [37:21, 46:53] and Board debate focusing on communication transparency and mitigating blasting impacts. Key changes incorporated into the permit included expanding the mandatory pre-blast survey radius to 500 feet from the property line (well beyond the state’s 250ft standard from the blast site), establishing a process for residents beyond 500ft to request surveys (with notice mailed up to 1000ft), setting specific blasting hours (9:00 AM - 3:30 PM), and requiring meetings with the blasting contractor 33:40. However, vocal resident concerns about communication (particularly the failure to post the revised permit online prior to the vote) and potential damage beyond 500ft persisted. Member Fletcher’s dissenting vote highlighted disagreement on whether the measures provided sufficient protection for homes with potentially vulnerable foundations further from the site 1:23:59.

  • Significance: This permit is essential for the timeline of the town’s largest-ever capital project. The debate and split vote underscore the challenges of balancing major construction needs with direct neighborhood impacts and maintaining community trust through effective communication, which residents and Member Spellios identified as lacking in the permit posting process 58:58.

Town Meeting Preparations: The Board reviewed the Annual Town Meeting warrant article by article 1:28:13, clarifying roles and positions. Key points include: TA Fitzgerald will explain Collective Bargaining Agreement costs 1:31:53; the Board opposes the citizen petition attempting to give the Select Board more power over Finance Committee appointments, and Chair Duffy will articulate this position 1:39:45; Chair Duffy will present the Climate Action Plan resolution 1:42:11; and Member Phelan will speak in favor of establishing Indigenous Peoples’ Day 1:43:11. Discussion on a zoning article (ADUs) was deferred to the pre-Town Meeting session 1:41:21.

  • Significance: This review signals the Board’s readiness for the town’s legislative body, outlining who will champion key initiatives and defend the Board’s positions on financial matters and governance structure.

Committee & Governance Updates: The Board unanimously approved restructuring the Swampscott for All Ages committee into a smaller, more defined 13-member body to improve effectiveness and quorum attainment 32:03. The Board also unanimously voted to opt-out of state-mandated mosquito spraying, preserving local control over pesticide application based on local risk assessment 22:07. The TA reported positive results from diversity initiatives in Fire Department hiring 6:18 and ongoing progress on police body cameras 8:24. The comment letter regarding the Atlantic Bay View (40B) proposal was postponed to the next meeting 1:25:03.

  • Significance: These actions reflect ongoing efforts to refine town committee structures for better function, maintain local control over environmental decisions, and advance public safety and administrative goals.

Overall: The meeting showcased the Board managing complex project oversight (school permit), routine governance (mosquito opt-out, SFAA restructure), and legislative preparation (Town Meeting). The extended debate on the school permit, particularly the communication issues and disagreement over risk mitigation levels, emerged as the most significant dynamic of the evening.

Section 5: Analysis

This meeting transcript reveals a Select Board navigating complex project management, resident relations, and routine governance, with the Earth Removal Permit (ERP) discussion [32:41 - 1:25:00] serving as a focal point for examining board dynamics and town-resident communication.

Communication Failures Undermine Process: The failure to post the revised ERP document online before the vote emerged as a significant self-inflicted wound. Resident commenters Rosenberg 37:21 and Vasiliou 46:53 effectively leveraged this lapse to frame their broader concerns about transparency and partnership. Member Spellios’s frank acknowledgement of this as an “unforced error” 58:58 was notable, but it couldn’t fully repair the damage to resident trust evident in the tone and substance of the public comments. This oversight weakened the Town’s position, making substantive arguments about the permit’s robustness harder to land effectively with concerned neighbors.

Differing Approaches to Risk and Regulation: The debate over the pre-blast survey radius exposed differing philosophies on the Board. Member Fletcher’s persistent advocacy for a 1500ft guaranteed radius [53:29, 1:16:16], grounded in specific concerns about local conditions (fieldstone foundations) and comparisons to quarry impacts, represented a strong precautionary stance prioritizing resident peace of mind. Conversely, the majority position, articulated most strongly by Member Spellios [58:58, 1:13:12] and supported by TA Fitzgerald 1:09:04, OPM Carroll 1:19:54, and Chair Duffy 1:20:41, relied heavily on adherence to (and exceeding) state regulatory standards and trust in the professional project team. Their arguments emphasized established procedures, the specific (smaller) scale of project blasting vs. quarrying, and pragmatic project management. The final 4-1 vote suggests the Board majority ultimately favored regulatory compliance and expert assurance over the broader, more costly mitigation Member Fletcher sought.

Effectiveness of Arguments: Resident arguments, while passionate and highlighting genuine quality-of-life concerns, were somewhat undermined by the communication failure overshadowing the permit’s actual content. Their requests for a significantly larger radius (1000-1500ft) lacked specific technical justification beyond citing local geology generally and did not appear to sway the Board majority, especially after the OPM’s input differentiating the blasting scale. Member Fletcher’s arguments were clear and resident-focused but couldn’t overcome the majority’s reliance on state standards and professional judgment. Member Spellios effectively defended the process leading to the permit (ERAC/SBC work) and the standards within it, even while conceding the communication fumble on posting. TA Fitzgerald positioned himself as balancing resident support with the practicalities of managing a large, complex project budget 1:09:04.

Town Meeting Preparation & Routine Business: The warrant review [1:28:13 ff] showed the Board operating efficiently in preparing for Town Meeting, assigning speaking roles and confirming positions. The unanimous votes on the SFAA restructure 32:03 and mosquito opt-out 22:07 indicate consensus on less contentious governance matters. The handling of the citizen petition on FinCom appointments 1:39:45 demonstrated the Board’s willingness to publicly oppose a measure ostensibly granting it more power, prioritizing the existing town governance structure.

Overall Dynamics: The meeting highlighted the inherent tension in managing large-scale development within a densely populated town. While the Board demonstrated a willingness to enhance protections beyond state minimums (e.g., the ERP survey radius), the process revealed vulnerabilities in communication that can erode trust, regardless of substantive efforts. The final ERP vote indicates a Board generally aligned on following established procedures and expert recommendations, albeit with internal dissent on the precise level of risk mitigation warranted.