2023-10-18: Select Board

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

Swampscott Select Board Meeting Review: October 18, 2023

1. Agenda

  • Opening Statement & Moment of Silence 0:06
    • Reading of Select Board and Town Administrator statements condemning Hamas attacks and expressing solidarity with Israel.
    • Moment of Silence.
  • Presentation: Girl Scout Troop 60103 2:52
    • Proposal for Silver Award project regarding banning plastic utensils, improving beach trash/composting bins, and increasing beach trash pickup frequency.
  • Public Comment 9:11
    • Concerns regarding water quality at Kings Beach and Fisherman’s Beach, historical context of sewer issues and consent decrees, calls for urgent action and allocation of ARPA funds to infrastructure.
    • Call for Swampscott-Lynn collaboration.
  • Update and Discussion: ARPA Fund Proposals 18:08
    • Presentation of potential projects from Town departments (DPW, Health, Library, Senior Center).
    • Select Board discussion on priorities, including significant focus on infrastructure (Kings Beach, Fisherman’s Beach sewers) versus other needs (mental health, climate action, historic preservation, etc.).
    • Discussion on forming a citizen advisory committee for infrastructure.
  • Discussion: Town Charter Review Updates 1:29:21
    • Proposal to schedule a dedicated meeting for charter review discussion.
  • Discussion: Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Update 1:35:10
    • Presentation on the accelerated FY25 CIP planning process and timeline.
  • Discussion and Vote: Approval of Sale of Notes 1:49:51
    • Presentation of Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) sale results for land acquisition project.
    • Announcement of Town’s AAA bond rating upgrade.
    • Vote to approve the sale of notes.
  • Update and Presentation: MBTA Communities Section 3A Zoning 1:57:51
    • Presentation by Planning Board representative on compliance efforts, proposed zoning overlay districts, and timeline for Town Meeting action.
  • Town Administrator’s Report 2:24:03
    • Updates on various town department activities and initiatives (Kings Beach Steering Committee, public safety hiring, HR updates, Rec Dept events, Health Dept notices, DPW projects, Community Development grant).
  • Select Board Time 2:28:30
    • Member announcements and comments.
  • Adjournment 2:31:40

2. Speaking Attendees

  • David Grishman (Select Board Chair): [Speaker 4], [Speaker 20], [Speaker 21]
  • Ainsley Miller (Girl Scout, Troop 60103): [Speaker 13]
  • Sophia Armstrong (Girl Scout, Troop 60103): [Speaker 14]
  • Committee Representative (Name not stated): [Speaker 16] (Likely related to waste reduction/single-use plastics based on context)
  • Sean Fitzgerald (Town Administrator): [Speaker 1], [Speaker 19] (at 2:28:23), [Speaker 22] (at 52:34)
  • Katie Phelan (Select Board Vice Chair): [Speaker 5]
  • Peter Spellios (Select Board Member): [Speaker 3]
  • Meeting Staff (Name not stated): [Speaker 19] (most instances)
  • Liz Smith (Resident, Precinct 3): [Speaker 10]
  • Andrea Amore (Resident): [Speaker 12]
  • Chris Lockley (Resident): [Speaker 18]
  • Doug Thompson (Select Board Member): [Speaker 6]
  • Evan (Lynn Resident): [Speaker 17]
  • Amy Handel (Assistant Town Administrator/Finance Director): [Speaker 8]
  • Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Member): [Speaker 9]
  • Patrick Dello Russo (Town Treasurer): [Speaker 7]
  • Marcie Carmody (Director of Community Development): [Speaker 15]
  • Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Representative / Former Chair): [Speaker 2]
  • Cindy Cavallaro (Resident, Precinct 3): [Speaker 11]

(Note: Speaker tag assignments were complex due to potential cross-talk or minor interjections being captured under shared tags. Assignments reflect the most likely speaker based on content and flow.)

3. Meeting Minutes

Opening: Chair David Grishman opened the meeting 0:06, reading prepared statements from the Select Board members and Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald condemning the October 7th Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel and expressing solidarity. A moment of silence followed 2:40.

Girl Scout Presentation: Ainsley Miller [Speaker 13] and Sophia Armstrong [Speaker 14] from Girl Scout Troop 60103 presented their Silver Award project proposal 2:52. They requested the Town ban plastic utensils in favor of compostable alternatives, improve trash/composting bins near beaches (specifically mentioning Humphrey Street/Kings Beach area), and implement daily beach trash pickup from Memorial Day to Labor Day to combat overflow and ocean pollution [4:13, 4:59, 5:25]. The Board received the presentation positively. Chair Grishman noted alignment with existing town efforts 6:34. A Committee Representative [Speaker 16] invited the Scouts to an upcoming public forum on single-use plastics 6:52. Town Administrator Fitzgerald praised their civic engagement 7:36, and Vice Chair Phelan encouraged them to speak at Town Meeting 8:45.

Public Comment: A brief technical issue regarding camera views for remote attendees was addressed 9:22.

  • Liz Smith 10:33 detailed the history of Swampscott’s non-compliance with Clean Water Act requirements dating back to 2007, referencing consent decrees, the age of sewer pipes (>50% over 100 years old), persistent King’s Beach closures, and recently revealed high bacteria levels at Fisherman’s Beach in 2022 that were allegedly not promptly reported. She cited a September 2023 EPA letter demanding more aggressive action and urged the Board to allocate all available ARPA funds ($2.5M state + $2.1M general) to sewer system rehabilitation, prioritizing Stacy’s Brook and Fisherman’s Beach.
  • Andrea Amore 13:36 echoed Ms. Smith’s urgency, stating the public clearly wants faster action on sewer repairs. She read an email from another resident expressing frustration with leadership, criticizing the state of King’s Beach (“badge of disgrace”), and demanding ARPA funds be used for the beaches. Ms. Amore asserted that failure to use the funds this way would mean the Board and Town Administrator were not reflecting the Town’s will.
  • Chris Lockley 15:45 also supported the points made by Smith and Amore, framing the beach pollution issue as a legacy problem the current Board has an opportunity to solve.
  • Evan, a Lynn resident and beach user 17:21, urged Swampscott and Lynn to work collaboratively on water quality issues.

ARPA Funds Discussion: Assistant Town Administrator/Finance Director Amy Handel presented an overview of the remaining $2.18M in general ARPA funds and summarized proposals received from Town departments 18:26: DPW ($182k for MS4 permit; $2M+ for King’s Beach water quality engineering), Health Dept ($140k for health promotion programs; $80k for mental health support groups; climate change mitigation grants), Library ($75k for mobile library EV), and Senior Center (Lift & Lunch program).

  • Chair Grishman asked for staff recommendations, but Town Administrator Fitzgerald clarified these were proposals for consideration, emphasizing the one-time nature of ARPA funds and suggesting prioritization for unique, non-recurring projects, possibly including affordable/immigrant housing [24:23, 25:49].
  • Vice Chair Phelan questioned if the DPW MS4 request was separate from the $2.5M King’s Beach state ARPA funds (it is), asked about grant availability for proposals (most grantable projects were already excluded, per Handel), noted the mobile library was also a capital request, and stressed prioritizing needs over wants 28:40. She later argued strongly that fixing infrastructure is a critical need and that cleaning up the beaches would be a generationally significant project 1:08:35.
  • Member Thompson referenced the prior ARPA community survey favoring infrastructure and mental health, advocated for significant infrastructure spending, supported climate action investments (solar, EVs, electrification study), and raised historic preservation (General Glover House) as a possible use 32:10. He later proposed a specific allocation “straw man” for the $2.1M: $1M for Fisherman’s Beach source elimination, $500k for climate initiatives, $500k for vetted staff proposals, and $100k for historic preservation/Glover 1:00:41.
  • Member Fletcher stated her strong opinion, referencing a Finance Committee position, that all remaining ARPA funds ($2.5M state + $2.1M general) should go to infrastructure repairs for King’s Beach and Fisherman’s Beach respectively 35:23.
  • Member Spellios provided extensive context 36:53, emphasizing the vast scale of Swampscott’s deferred capital needs across all areas (schools, library, facilities, resiliency, water/sewer) due to decades of underinvestment. He acknowledged the survey results supporting infrastructure but noted $2.5M was already allocated. He expressed concern about the effectiveness of past IDDE spending ($6.5M) given limited results at King’s Beach, highlighting the regional nature of the problem and the need for partnerships and a clear strategy before committing all funds. He advocated for a more holistic approach and better technical understanding.
  • Chair Grishman pushed for deploying the $2.5M state ARPA funds quickly 46:51. Fitzgerald noted the project scope was submitted to MassDEP on August 24th and approval was still pending 49:34. A significant portion of the discussion involved frustration over the delay and the slow pace of progress on beach cleanup efforts.
  • Member Spellios proposed forming a citizen infrastructure advisory committee to improve dialogue, technical understanding, and strategy 54:21. This idea received broad support from Fletcher 1:04:38, Phelan 1:12:03, and Thompson 59:22. Spellios and Thompson volunteered to draft a proposal for the committee’s scope and structure for the next meeting 1:14:23.
  • Town Administrator Fitzgerald expressed deep frustration 1:15:21 with the lack of results at King’s Beach despite significant town effort and spending, stating he doesn’t believe spending more town money alone will solve it this generation and calling forcefully for state and federal partners (“You be more aggressive. You help us.”). He supported citizen involvement.
  • Resident Cindy Cavallaro commented again 1:22:10, expressing concern about perceived confusion and delay, questioning the need for more committees when extensive information exists, and urging action.
  • A discussion occurred regarding efforts to have DCR take over the Swampscott portion of King’s Beach, which requires bringing town seawalls to good repair first 1:24:28. Phelan questioned if ARPA could fund seawalls; Fitzgerald acknowledged it could but framed it as deferred ordinary maintenance, while Spellios noted seawall projects are already underway in the capital plan 1:26:31.

Town Charter Review: Chair Grishman proposed tabling the discussion and scheduling a dedicated meeting solely for charter review 1:29:21. Member Spellios agreed with a dedicated meeting but requested more time for review than the following week 1:31:01. Vice Chair Phelan requested background information on proposed changes 1:32:25. The Board agreed to aim for a meeting in early November (Nov 1 or 8) 1:31:43.

Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Update: Town Treasurer Patrick Dello Russo outlined the accelerated timeline for the FY25 CIP process 1:35:49, aiming for department submissions by Sept end, CIC review through January, and Finance Committee review in February for inclusion in the March 1 budget. Vice Chair Phelan requested status updates on previously funded projects be included 1:39:57. Town Administrator Fitzgerald provided context on the planning vs. budgeting distinction 1:41:03. Member Thompson asked about ensuring input from town boards and committees; staff committed to direct outreach 1:43:42. There was discussion about incorporating Select Board priorities earlier in the process 1:46:08.

Sale of Notes: Treasurer Dello Russo presented the successful sale of Bond Anticipation Notes (BANs) to refinance the FY22 land acquisition 1:50:07. Note A ($1.65M tax-exempt) sold at 4.42%, maturing March 2024. Note B ($7.225M taxable) sold at 5.62%, maturing Oct 2024. He explained the short-term strategy aims for long-term savings, rolling debt up with other maturities. Crucially, Dello Russo announced S&P had upgraded Swampscott’s bond rating to AAA, the highest possible rating 1:54:18. Fitzgerald emphasized the significance of this achievement, reflecting years of improved financial discipline and resulting in lower borrowing costs 1:54:52.

  • MOTION: Vice Chair Phelan moved to adopt the written votes approving the sale of notes 1:57:14.
  • SECOND: Member Thompson (implied, not explicitly named).
  • VOTE: Passed unanimously (3-0, Grishman, Phelan, Thompson voting Aye; Fletcher likely absent for vote, Spellios departed).

MBTA Communities Section 3A Zoning: Angela Ippolito, Planning Board Representative, presented an update on compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities zoning law (Section 3A) 1:58:20. Swampscott, as a commuter rail community, must zone at least 20 acres for by-right multifamily housing (min. 15 units/acre), with at least 5 acres near the station. Using a state grant and Bowler Engineering, the Planning Board identified overlay districts near the train station (approx. 6.5 acres) and in the Vinton Square area (approx. 34 acres, exceeding the minimum). Analysis showed Swampscott is already largely compliant with density requirements in these areas but must formally adopt the zoning by Dec 2024. Recent state guidance changes allowing required ground-floor commercial were reviewed but didn’t change the recommended zones. Ms. Ippolito requested Select Board approval of the proposed district maps soon, so the Planning Board can draft the specific zoning bylaw for the May 2024 Town Meeting warrant.

  • Chair Grishman confirmed the unit capacity numbers represent a floor, not a ceiling 2:13:01. Vice Chair Phelan commended the Planning Board’s proactive work, flexibility with changing guidelines, and exceeding state minimums for acreage and density 2:14:43.
  • Town Administrator Fitzgerald discussed the law’s complex relationship with affordability 2:17:29. Community Development Director Marcie Carmody noted the zoning removes barriers and encourages transit-oriented density 2:21:47.
  • The Select Board agreed to place the map approval on a November agenda 2:23:33.

Town Administrator’s Report: Fitzgerald provided updates 2:24:03, including ongoing Kings Beach Steering Committee work, police and firefighter hiring progress, HR activities, successful Rec Dept events (Car Show, Indigenous Peoples Day plans), Health Dept reminders (COVID/flu), DPW projects (Reach Arts, school area roadway designs), and an upcoming Community Development grant announcement. In response to Member Fletcher, he stated he expected to have a recommendation for the Town Planner position within a week 2:28:03.

Select Board Time: Member Fletcher reminded the public of the October 25th public forum on the proposed single-use plastics bylaw 2:28:36. Vice Chair Phelan praised the Rec Department and Library for offering low-cost and no-cost community events and resources, specifically highlighting the Halloween costume exchange as promoting equity and inclusion 2:28:53. Chair Grishman echoed this appreciation 2:31:12.

Adjournment:

  • MOTION: Vice Chair Phelan moved to adjourn 2:31:40 (attributed, as initial mover was non-member).
  • SECOND: Member Fletcher 2:31:45.
  • VOTE: Passed unanimously (4-0).

4. Executive Summary

This Swampscott Select Board meeting addressed several critical town issues, dominated by an extensive and often passionate debate regarding the allocation of federal ARPA funds and the ongoing crisis of water quality at town beaches.

ARPA Funds and Beach Infrastructure Crisis: The Board grappled with how to allocate the remaining $2.18 million in general ARPA funds. Assistant Town Administrator/Finance Director Amy Handel presented proposals from various departments 18:26, but significant public comment [10:33, 13:36, 15:45] and Board discussion centered on demands to dedicate these funds, along with $2.5 million in state ARPA funds already earmarked for King’s Beach, entirely to urgent sewer infrastructure repairs aimed at addressing contamination at King’s and Fisherman’s Beaches. Members Fletcher 35:23 and Phelan 1:08:35 strongly advocated for prioritizing this critical need, citing public opinion and the generational impact of clean beaches. Member Thompson proposed a compromise allocation including infrastructure, climate action, and other needs 1:00:41, while Member Spellios urged caution, highlighting the vast scale of town-wide deferred maintenance, the complex regional nature of the beach problem, and the need for a clear, effective strategy beyond just spending money on potentially insufficient solutions like past IDDE efforts 36:53. Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald expressed profound frustration with the lack of progress on King’s Beach despite years of effort and significant town spending, emphasizing the need for state and federal partnership and intervention 1:15:21. Recognizing the complexity and need for deeper engagement, the Board reached consensus to form a citizen infrastructure advisory committee, with Members Spellios and Thompson volunteering to draft a proposal 1:14:23. The Board also pressed for expedited state (MassDEP) approval to deploy the $2.5M state ARPA funds for King’s Beach work [46:51, 49:34].

Financial Management Milestone: Amidst infrastructure funding pressures, Town Treasurer Patrick Dello Russo delivered significant positive financial news: Standard & Poor’s upgraded Swampscott’s bond rating to AAA, the highest achievable rating 1:54:18. Town Administrator Fitzgerald highlighted this as a remarkable accomplishment, reflecting years of improved financial discipline and resulting in substantial savings on future borrowing costs 1:54:52. The Board subsequently approved the sale of over $8.8 million in short-term notes related to a prior land acquisition 1:57:14.

Planning and Development: The Planning Board provided an update on compliance with the state’s MBTA Communities Act (Section 3A), requiring zoning changes to allow denser, by-right multifamily housing near transit 1:58:20. Swampscott must adopt zoning for at least 20 acres. The proposed overlay districts near the train station and Vinton Square exceed state minimums for acreage and density potential. While Swampscott’s existing density helps meet compliance calculations, the new zoning bylaw must be adopted by Town Meeting in 2024. The Board agreed to review the proposed maps in November 2:23:33. Separately, the Board discussed accelerating the Capital Improvement Planning (CIP) process to allow for earlier review and input 1:35:10, and agreed to schedule a dedicated meeting in November to discuss potential Town Charter revisions 1:31:43.

Community Engagement: The meeting began with a presentation from Girl Scouts proposing environmental initiatives 2:52, which was warmly received and linked to ongoing town efforts regarding waste reduction. Public comment was robust, focusing almost entirely on the beach water quality issues. The Board also highlighted upcoming community events and resources aimed at equity and inclusion 2:28:53.

Significance for Residents: The ARPA fund debate underscores the immense pressure the town faces regarding failing infrastructure, particularly sewers impacting beach health, balanced against other community needs. The formation of an infrastructure committee signals an attempt to engage residents more deeply in finding solutions. The AAA bond rating is a major positive, potentially easing the financial burden of large capital projects over time. The MBTA zoning changes, while mandated, represent significant potential shifts in housing development patterns near transit hubs. The accelerated capital planning aims for more transparency and strategic long-term investment.

5. Analysis

The October 18th Select Board meeting transcript reveals a town government grappling intensely with legacy infrastructure failures, particularly the environmental and public health crisis at its beaches, while navigating state mandates and striving for responsible financial management.

Dominance of the Beach Crisis: The ARPA fund discussion was overwhelmingly shaped by the sewer infrastructure and beach contamination issues. Public commenters Liz Smith 10:33 and Andrea Amore 13:36 presented compelling, data-driven arguments rooted in historical context (consent decrees, lack of reporting), effectively setting the stage for the Board’s debate. Their arguments, amplified by other commenters and Member Fletcher’s strong advocacy 35:23, created significant pressure to dedicate all available ARPA funds to this single, urgent problem. The frustration voiced by residents and Town Administrator Fitzgerald 1:15:21 regarding the lack of tangible progress despite years of effort and millions spent was palpable.

Differing Board Philosophies on ARPA: While acknowledging the urgency, Board members displayed different approaches. Fletcher and, to a degree, Phelan represented a “needs must” perspective focused on the immediate infrastructure crisis. Thompson attempted a broader, balanced approach aligning with survey data and climate goals 32:10. Spellios offered a critical, strategic perspective 36:53, questioning the efficacy of past spending (IDDE) and warning against reactive spending without a comprehensive, multi-partner plan, given the sheer scale of Swampscott’s total deferred maintenance ($500M+). His argument highlighted the tension between addressing the most visible crisis and the less visible but equally critical systemic underfunding across all town assets. Fitzgerald’s own frustration seemed to lean towards Spellios’s point that more local money alone might not be the answer without a paradigm shift involving state/federal partners 1:15:21.

Effectiveness of Arguments: The arguments for prioritizing beach infrastructure were emotionally resonant and grounded in tangible public health concerns, making them highly effective in driving the conversation. Spellios’s counterarguments about broader context and strategic planning were intellectually sound but faced the challenge of appearing to delay action on an immediate crisis. The consensus to form an infrastructure committee 1:14:23 appears as a constructive compromise, acknowledging the need for deeper strategic thinking and community buy-in advocated by Spellios, while signaling action demanded by others.

Proactive Planning vs. Reactive Crisis Management: The meeting showcased both proactive planning efforts (accelerated CIP process 1:35:10, MBTA zoning compliance 1:58:20, achieving AAA rating 1:54:18) and reactive crisis management (the ARPA/beach debate). The Planning Board’s presentation on MBTA zoning was thorough and demonstrated competent navigation of shifting state requirements, although Fitzgerald rightly questioned whether mere compliance achieves the underlying goal of actual affordable housing creation 2:17:29. The Treasurer’s report on the AAA rating was a clear success story demonstrating effective long-term financial strategy 1:54:18. However, these successes were somewhat overshadowed by the intense focus on the seemingly intractable beach/sewer problem.

Town Administrator’s Position: Sean Fitzgerald’s interventions were notable. He acted as both a facilitator of information (introducing staff presentations) and a key voice shaping the narrative. His defense of the Town’s efforts, coupled with his stark assessment of the limitations of local action alone on King’s Beach and his forceful call for state/federal responsibility 1:15:21, positioned the administration as actively working the problem but realistic about the need for external intervention. His framing of ARPA funds potentially seeding a “generational project” beyond basic repairs 50:45 provided a counterpoint to the immediate infrastructure demands.

Overall Dynamics: The meeting reflected a Board and administration under considerable pressure, attempting to balance immediate constituent demands regarding a high-profile failure (beaches) with long-term strategic planning, fiscal responsibility, and state mandates. The decision to form an infrastructure committee is a key outcome, potentially channeling public passion into a structured process, but its success will depend heavily on its scope, resources, and the willingness of all parties to engage constructively towards feasible solutions within daunting financial and technical constraints.