2024-02-07: Select Board

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

Swampscott Select Board Meeting Analysis: February 7, 2024

Section 1: Agenda

Based on the transcript, the likely agenda for the meeting followed this order:

  1. Reading of the Black History Month Proclamation by Swampscott High School Students 0:04:54
  2. Town Administrator’s Report 0:17:59
  3. Public Comments (General) 0:20:14
    • Comments on local election turnout and proposed voting age change.
    • Comments on the Fish Pier/Resiliency project (FEER project).
    • Comments on the proposed Pickleball Courts at Phillips Park.
  4. Climate Action Plan Committee & Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee Discussion on Recent Climate-Related Impacts 0:51:15
  5. Public Comment related to the Hadley School Hotel Presentations of January 30, 2024 2:20:56
  6. Discussion of FY24’s Second Quarter Budget & Financial Forecast 3:07:23
  7. Review of Special Town Meeting Warrant of 3/11/24, Including Review, Discussion and Vote on Articles for Inclusion 3:19:37
    • Article 1: Amend FY24 School Appropriation (Chapter 70)
    • Article 2: Transfer Free Cash for School Transportation (Homeless/Foster Care)
    • Article 3: Fund DPW Collective Bargaining Agreement (Updated Approach Presented)
    • Article 4: Home Rule Petition - Remove Chapter 61B (Open Space Tax Abatement)
    • Article 5: Home Rule Petition - Lower Voting Age to 16 (Municipal Elections)
    • Article 6: Home Rule Petition - Allow 17-year-olds to Pre-Register to Vote
    • Article 7: General Bylaw Amendment - Adopt Specialized Energy Code
    • Article 8: Appropriate Funds for Pickleball Courts (Park Grant Match)
    • Article 9: Increase Local Room Excise Tax
  8. Discussion & Possible Vote for Use of $30,000 in Town ARPA Funds for Preservation of Glover House 3:50:34
  9. Approval of the Consent Agenda 4:10:29
    • Item 2 (Solid Waste Advisory Committee Appointments) removed for discussion.
    • Remaining items (SHS Run, DPW Director on Water/Sewer Cmte, Minutes) approved.
  10. Discussion & Vote on Solid Waste Advisory Committee Appointments (Term Adjustment) 4:11:24
  11. Select Board Time 4:13:37 (Brief mention of Health Budget/Opioid Settlement for next meeting)
  12. Adjournment 4:14:14

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

  • [Speaker 1] Peter Kane (Select Board Member)
  • [Speaker 2] Jay Borklin (Advisor/Consultant to Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee)
  • [Speaker 3] Sean Fitzgerald (Town Administrator)
  • [Speaker 4] Doug Thompson (Select Board Member)
  • [Speaker 5] Jackson Schultz (Chair, Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee)
  • [Speaker 6] MaryEllen Fletcher (Select Board Member)
  • [Speaker 7] Martha Smith (Chair, Climate Action Plan Committee)
  • [Speaker 8] Amy Sero (Director of Finance) / Possibly also Charlotte Daher de Garcia during online public comment segment confusion 0:30:18 - defaulting to Finance Director based on later presentation context.
  • [Speaker 9] David Eppley (Select Board Chair)
  • [Speaker 10] Katie Phelan (Select Board Member)
  • [Speaker 11] Laura Lau (Resident, Outlook Road) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 12] Jarrad / Jared? (Chair/Jared?) Germa (Precinct 3 Town Meeting Member, Historic District Commission Member) - Public Commenter (Identified himself as Chair Germa, referred to later by [Speaker 22] as Jared)
  • [Speaker 13] Mary DiCillo (Resident, 7 Rockland Street, Former School Committee & Local Historic District Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 14] Wayne Spritz (Resident, Precinct 3) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 15] Pete Peterson (Assistant Town Administrator)
  • [Speaker 16] John Jantis (Resident, Precinct 4 Town Meeting Member, School Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 17] Hillary Fouts (Resident, Precinct 6) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 18] Ralph Edwards (SHORE Representative)
  • [Speaker 19] Mike Bryson (Resident, Precinct 4, Town Meeting Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 20] Lori Lubben (Resident, Precinct 4, Hadley Advisory Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 21] Colleen Sproul (Resident, Pumphrey/Ocean Ave) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 22] Joe Duet (Resident, Precinct 3) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 23] Ryan Hale (Chair, Capital Improvement Committee, Town Meeting Member, Renewable Energy Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 24] Student Reader (Swampscott High School Student - Naina Alves Valera?) - Reading Proclamation
  • [Speaker 25] Neil Pearlstein (Resident, Precinct 5) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 26] Resident (Name not stated) - Public Commenter (Spoke on Pier/Climate)
  • [Speaker 27] Maria Williams (Resident, Precinct 5) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 28] Andrea Amore (Resident, Precinct 3) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 29] Student Reader (Swampscott High School Student - Angel Angienhiem?) - Reading Proclamation
  • [Speaker 30] Steve Riley (Resident, Precinct 5) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 31] Ted Dooley (Resident, Magnolia Road, Harbor Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 32] Unknown Speaker (Before main recording start)
  • [Speaker 33] John Hentz? (Resident/Glover House Advocate, potentially Historic Commission associate) - Public Commenter (Identified self as John, spoke on Glover House preservation details)
  • [Speaker 34] Lisa Boehmer (Waterfront Advisory Committee Member) - Public Commenter
  • [Speaker 35] Dr. Stephanie Nauman (Resident, Precinct 5) - Public Commenter (Later appointed to Solid Waste Cmte)
  • [Speaker 36] Ruben Quesada (Police Chief)
  • [Speaker 37] Chris Schwartz (Resident, District 5) - Public Commenter / Unknown interjection later
  • [Speaker 38] Student Reader (Swampscott High School Student - Desiree Bickerstaff-Peoples?) - Reading Proclamation
  • [Speaker 39] Charlotte Daher de Garcia (Resident, Precinct 3) - Public Commenter (Online)
  • [Speaker 40] Officer Wilson (SRO, Swampscott Police Department)
  • [Speaker 41] Unknown Speaker (Likely staff member assisting with meeting logistics/tech, possibly Diane Heffernan?) - Multiple interjections
  • [Speaker 42] Unknown Speaker (Brief comment thanking “Mr. Iannacone” - possibly referring to Member Kane [Speaker 1]?)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

1. Black History Month Proclamation 0:04:54 Chairperson Eppley introduced three Swampscott High School students (Desiree Bickerstaff-Peoples, Angel Angienhiem, Naina Alves Valera) who read the Town’s Black History Month Proclamation [0:05:42 - 0:11:06]. Police Chief Quesada and SRO Officer Wilson presented the students with commemorative patches, explaining the patch’s unique design originated from a student artist [0:11:12 - 0:14:02]. Ralph Edwards from SHORE (Swampscott Unites, Respects, Embraces Diversity) announced a Black History Month celebration event at the High School on February 27th [0:14:28 - 0:17:32]. Member Kane moved to approve the proclamation, seconded, and passed unanimously [0:17:41 - 0:17:59].

2. Town Administrator’s Report 0:17:59 Town Administrator Sean Fitzgerald provided updates [0:18:03 - 0:20:14]:

  • Hadley Hotel proposals discussion later in the meeting.
  • FY25 budget development underway.
  • Meeting held regarding King’s Beach with state environmental officials.
  • Reviewing DEI consultant proposals.
  • Successful Holocaust Memorial event held Jan 25th.
  • Senior Center kitchen renovation ongoing.
  • Assessing department handling increased abatement requests.
  • Health department conducting opioid surveys.
  • New HR Director hired (Mary Ann McCasters).
  • Recreation programs active; summer registration open.
  • Town Clerk preparing for Presidential Primary (early voting Feb 24th). No questions from the Board.

3. Public Comment (General) 0:20:14 Chairperson Eppley opened public comment, requesting Hadley Hotel comments be held for that agenda item.

  • Wayne Spritz (Precinct 3) [0:23:02 - 0:25:47]: Expressed concern over low local election turnout (10-15%) despite high committee involvement. Argued against the proposed Special Town Meeting article to lower the voting age to 16, calling it “anti-democratic” due to minors’ lack of independence, potential influence by adults/schools, and underdeveloped reasoning. Urged the Board to drop the article and hold public hearings on voter engagement.
  • Ryan Hale (Capital Improvement Committee Chair, TM Member, REC Member) [0:26:06 - 0:28:33]: Voiced concern about the Fish Pier/FEER project’s trajectory, stating it drifted from prioritizing storm/flood mitigation for the entire coastline (as recommended in 2015-2020 plans) towards maximizing mooring area via the pier replacement. Believes the current pier project scope is excessive, potentially “dead in the water” with regulators, and advocated redirecting funds to engineering studies for broader coastal protection infrastructure first.
  • Chris Schwartz (District 5) [0:28:49 - 0:30:10]: Acknowledged sea-level rise and storm intensity. Argued for pursuing both shoreline resiliency and the pier project simultaneously, calling the pier the “artery to the ocean” and essential for a seaside town. Stated the current pier project is in year four of a potential ten-year process.
  • Charlotte Daher de Garcia (Precinct 3, Online) [0:30:53 - 0:31:57]: Supported the pier project, citing its value to boat owners and as a town landmark enjoyed by the entire community (artists, families, fishermen). Argued for its maintenance for safety and preservation.
  • Resident (Name not stated) [0:32:20 - 0:34:13]: Supported both the pier project and climate control/seawall efforts. Argued the pier project is crucial for attracting tourism (by land and sea) as the town potentially develops the hotel and waterfront.
  • Hillary Fouts (Precinct 6) [0:34:27 - 0:37:43]: Advocated strongly for approving the grant and article for pickleball courts at Phillips Park. Highlighted the sport’s popularity, demand from potential residents, and dismissed noise concerns (comparing pickleball sound to existing sports noise). Argued against letting a “minority” of opponents derail the project and urged the Board to let Town Meeting decide.
  • Ted Dooley (Magnolia Road, Harbor Committee Member) [0:37:51 - 0:39:35]: Emphasized the deteriorating state of the current pier (lost planks, people falling through) and the lengthy timeline (potentially a decade) for permitting and building a replacement. Framed the issue as deciding whether the town wants a pier, arguing inaction means losing it to nature.
  • Dr. Stephanie Nauman (Precinct 5) [0:39:45 - 0:41:34]: Supported pickleball but strongly opposed the Phillips Park location. Cited noise concerns (“noise is frequently used as torture”), flooding issues in the proposed area (offering photo evidence), and the fact that a previous Town Meeting vote defeated courts at this location. Suggested alternative locations like the middle school or near the dog park.
  • Colleen Sproul (Pumphrey/Ocean Ave) [0:41:46 - 0:43:16]: Supported pickleball courts at Phillips Park, noting she supported the nearby bike path despite proximity to her home. Expressed concern about coastal flooding mitigation, referencing coastline changes from 1960s dredging for Logan Airport and questioning the effectiveness of just building a wall. Supported the pier but prioritized addressing known flood zones first. Felt Phillips Park was appropriate for pickleball due to existing activities.
  • Maria Williams (Precinct 5) [0:43:28 - 0:45:18]: Opposed Phillips Park pickleball courts due to existing flooding issues worsened by recent development (Bertram House, Police Station), loss of parking needed for existing sports/playground/beach access, noise impact on nearby nursing home residents, and the presence of wetlands. Suggested other locations like the dog park area.
  • Neil Pearlstein (Precinct 5) [0:45:27 - 0:47:28]: Opposed Phillips Park pickleball location, providing photos of flooding in the parking lot and proposed court area. Cited lack of parking during existing sporting events as a major concern. Suggested alternative locations with ample parking and fewer neighbor/flooding issues: behind the middle school tennis courts, near the dog park, or on DPW land near the cemetery.
  • Steve Riley (Precinct 5) [0:47:34 - 0:49:29]: Opposed Phillips Park pickleball location. Acknowledged noise is a real issue with pickleball courts nationwide. Primarily concerned about the location’s suitability: wetlands, settling ground, prone to significant coastal flooding (citing recent storms), and heavy use for boat storage and parking. Advocated finding a better location with suitable drainage, parking, and privacy.
  • Lisa Boehmer (Waterfront Advisory Committee Member) [0:49:39 - 0:51:13]: Emphasized the waterfront’s importance to the community and visitors. Praised HWAC’s work. Stressed the urgency of the pier project due to grant deadlines and recent storm damage (planks lost), noting the pier is iconic and needs accessibility improvements.

4. Climate Action & Harbor/Waterfront Discussion 0:51:15 Chair Eppley introduced the joint discussion. Member Thompson expressed appreciation for the public engagement 0:51:36.

  • Martha Smith (Climate Action Plan Committee Chair) [0:54:04 - 1:02:38]: Presented an overview of Swampscott’s climate-related activities, distinguishing between emissions reduction (REC, Green Communities grants) and resiliency/mitigation (Hazard Mitigation Plan, Kleinfelder Report, various committees). Showed flood projection maps for 2030 and 2050 0:54:47, highlighting impacts on areas like Phillips Park and King’s Beach. Showed a heat island map 0:56:20. Reviewed specific plans and grant programs:
    • Hazard Mitigation Plan (update grant received).
    • Climate Action Plan (includes resilience focus area).
    • Green Communities ($1M+ received over 10 yrs, focus shifting to emissions reduction, potential Climate Leader designation).
    • MVP Grants (one received for beachfront resilience, planning to apply for more).
    • Municipal Projects (Seawall repairs - Kings completed, Isman’s proposed; identified infrastructure at risk - Fish House, pump station, police station).
    • Reviewed roles of CAPC, REC, Open Space, Trees Committee.
    • Mentioned other grants and new state coastal resiliency program.
    • Referenced Kleinfelder Report recommendations 1:01:35 and Hazard Mitigation Plan goals 1:02:06.
  • Discussion:
    • Member Fletcher asked what’s in the current budget addressing the 2016 Kleinfelder report 1:02:43. TA Fitzgerald replied nothing directly connected 1:03:10. Fletcher urged re-evaluation given climate risks. TA Fitzgerald noted efforts on pier grants and state/federal advocacy based on the Harbor plan 1:03:47. Member Kane framed the current discussion as the start of that re-evaluation, mentioning the living reef/breakwater concept 1:04:32.
    • Member Fletcher asked about addressing gas leaks, referencing former Member Duffy’s focus 1:05:00. Martha Smith explained National Grid’s repair prioritization (Category 1 first) and the persistent backlog (~100 leaks) due to aging infrastructure 1:05:29. Member Kane displayed a heat map of leaks, noting DPU oversight and competition with other towns/cities for utility attention 1:07:03. TA Fitzgerald elaborated on advocacy efforts and frustration with Tier 2/3 classifications 1:07:47. Martha Smith mentioned the HEAT nonprofit map tracking leaks 1:08:30.
    • Chair Eppley asked about past/future climate investments 1:09:04. TA Fitzgerald mentioned some smaller projects but no major mitigation infrastructure 1:09:13. Member Kane interjected strongly, stating the town has not made meaningful investments in coastal resiliency despite its exposure and is “behind” 1:09:41. Member Thompson noted opportunities exist 1:10:44.
  • Jackson Schultz (HWAC Chair) & Jay Borklin (HWAC Advisor) [1:11:34 - 2:17:04]:
    • Introductions, including Member Kane’s highlighting of Jay Borklin’s expertise and pro bono contributions 1:12:36.
    • Presented slides showing recent storm damage (Jan 13, 2024) 1:14:15, including wave impacts on the pier, Fish House foundation undermining 1:17:06, Humphrey St flooding 1:32:04, and pier deterioration (missing planks, rotted joists) [1:30:44, 1:34:44].
    • Jay Borklin explained the increasing storm intensity and sea-level rise are causing structural integrity issues for both the pier and Fish House 1:17:06. He noted the pier is over a decade past its design life 1:34:44 and may not survive the years needed for permitting/replacement.
    • Critical Point: Borklin emphasized the high regulatory protection of Swampscott Harbor’s expanding eelgrass bed 1:35:57. If the current pier is destroyed before replacement is permitted, regulations would view it as a new structure over eelgrass, making permitting extremely difficult and costly, if not impossible 1:36:02. He clarified that even replacing the pier in place requires raising it and making it resilient to meet current standards and secure funding; simply rebuilding the existing low pier is not feasible or fundable [1:37:11 - 1:38:55].
    • The discussion became notably detailed regarding the challenges and costs. Estimated replacement pier cost: $4M - $20M range, pending 60% design completion 1:41:57. If the pier is lost first, cost could double, if permitted at all 1:44:13. The pier project includes resiliency measures for the Fish House front, but not raising the entire structure [1:21:51, 1:43:42].
    • Funding Challenges: Borklin explained the Seaport Economic Council (SEC), which funded the pier feasibility/design grants, typically funds “hard infrastructure” (piers, seawalls, dredging) and was hesitant to fund the “Living Reef” concept initially proposed alongside the pier 1:25:36. SEC focuses on structures, while broader resiliency (like the Living Reef or cantilevered seawalls) falls more under CZM/EPA, where funding mechanisms are still evolving. He noted a regional North Shore resiliency group forming 1:26:23.
    • Pier Location: HWAC proposes relocating the new pier to abut Chace (-en?) Park, citing better elevation (reducing ramp length/impact) and improved public accessibility/welcoming feel compared to the current location against the Fish House 1:52:23.
    • Defend vs. Retreat: Borklin introduced the broader coastal planning dilemma: defend vulnerable areas (requiring significant investment in things like the pier, Fish House, seawalls, living reef) or retreat (move structures, turn waterfront into parkland) 1:59:02. He framed the pier decision as part of this larger choice.
    • Pier Necessity Debate: Member Kane pressed whether the town fundamentally believes a pier is essential infrastructure, arguing the HWAC shouldn’t spin wheels if the commitment isn’t there [1:53:59, 2:01:49]. HWAC Chair Schultz felt the community strongly supports having a pier [1:55:35, 2:04:10]. Member Thompson noted the cost ($10-20M) makes it a real question, tying it to the broader resiliency plan 1:57:03. Member Phelan noted some residents remember Swampscott pre-pier 1:58:27. TA Fitzgerald argued passionately for the pier’s value for mental health, community enjoyment, and economic activity, and urged trusting the process with state agencies 2:13:49.
    • Public Outreach: Member Fletcher expressed concern about insufficient public outreach on the pier project, citing a poorly attended hearing 2:17:04. This led to a brief, tense exchange with Member Kane about undermining volunteer work versus ensuring public input 2:19:14.
    • Chair Eppley requested the presentations be posted online and invited the committees back [2:16:48, 2:20:10].

5. Public Comment (Hadley Hotel) 2:20:56 Chair Eppley opened the comment period specifically for the Hadley School hotel proposals.

  • Mike Bryson (Precinct 4, Abutter) [2:21:24 - 2:23:18]: Implored the Board and chosen developer to listen to neighbors’ concerns about infrastructure, light/sound pollution, and traffic. Stated neighbors haven’t been adequately consulted yet. Also urged continued focus on King’s Beach cleanup. Member Kane responded, outlining the multi-stage public process ahead, including design review with Select Board approval required before zoning/planning, drawing parallels to the Michon and Greenwood school redevelopments [2:23:24 - 2:26:23].
  • Andrea Amore (Precinct 3) [2:26:26 - 2:28:17]: Expressed strong support for the Noannet proposal, citing their reputation for high-quality construction (Raffles, One Dalton) and positive interaction with Jordan Warshaw regarding King’s Beach concerns. Believed Noannet would be the best long-term partner.
  • John Jantis (Precinct 4, Abutter, School Committee) [2:28:29 - 2:31:48]: Favored the Drew proposal, citing its perceived consideration of neighbors (buffer zones, scale) and the full team’s presence at the presentation showing commitment. Raised concerns based on experience with nearby construction (Convent conversion): need for student quiet during construction (noise, vermin, dust), equipment parking restrictions, and robust mitigation plans for post-construction noise, light, and traffic (referencing audible music from Mission). Highlighted the loss of the heavily used ballfield/playground and questioned replacement plans.
  • Lori Lubben (Precinct 4, Hadley Advisory Committee) [2:31:50 - 2:35:16]: Favored the Drew proposal, praising its thought-through design, consideration of the neighborhood, activation of Humphrey Street/Linscott Park, public access on the first floor, and team experience. Critiqued Noannet’s initial design scale as disrespectful to the neighborhood and overly focused on guest ocean views. Critiqued Clearview’s lack of an architect at the presentation and less developed design/landscaping (showing parking lot). Supported the hotel use overall but lamented playground loss.
  • Colleen Sproul (Ocean Ave) [2:35:33 - 2:37:23]: Spoke in favor of the Clearview (Miramar/Delmar?) proposal, liking their seaside project experience, integrated construction company (cost control), and perceived understanding of the town’s historic nature. Expressed strong negative opinions about unrelated changes at the Four Seasons hotel in Boston’s Back Bay.
  • Mary DiCillo (Rockland St, Former Cmte Member) [2:37:39 - 2:41:52]: Supported the hotel concept. Strongly suggested forming an advisory committee (including trades/finance expertise) to work with the developer, similar to the high school project. Emphasized the importance of preservation, referencing the Olmsted District and the town’s rich architectural heritage. Stressed the need for commitment to managing the property well, ensuring public access, and guarding against potential flipping/private equity issues that could sever relationships.
  • Jared Germa (Precinct 3, Historic District Commission) [2:42:03 - 2:47:06]: Praised the caliber of all proposals. Appreciated Clearview’s approach of not demolishing structure to preserve “green building” principles. Critiqued Noannet’s scale, street relationship, and lack of view corridor consideration. Found Drew’s scale better but disliked the demolition; felt Drew’s addition honored Hadley School while Noannet’s “glommed on” losing the school’s identity. Dismissed Linscott Park encroachment (Drew?) as infeasible. Favored Clearview/Miramar for scale, preservation sensitivity, and community fit (citing positive experience with their Traverse City property). Emphasized need for neighborhood-sensitive design (e.g., foot lighting vs. pole lighting).
  • Joe Duet (Precinct 3) [2:47:20 - 2:50:06]: Impressed by presentations. Concerned about potential Linscott Park encroachment (Drew’s design?) and loss of informal play space. Questioned whether the “community space” in the hotel would truly welcome local kids/families (e.g., using restrooms after playing). Proposed exploring discounted event space use for town groups/alumni reunions as part of the town’s relationship with the hotel. Member Kane clarified Linscott Park has a conservation restriction preventing commercialization [2:50:06 - 2:50:58].
  • Laura Lau (Outlook Road) [2:51:09 - 2:59:06]: Raised concerns about the scale and environmental impact (concrete/steel, water/electricity use) of larger proposals. Urged limits on tree removal for views. Concerned about commercial use/overflow into Linscott Park, potential conflicts with town events, loss of playground/field/community space, and noise. Questioned the process around suggesting Hawthorne site use, reiterating its intended public purpose. Criticized communication and “developer creep” (referencing room count increases from initial studies). Raised parking/traffic impacts, potential negative impact on existing Humphrey St businesses, need for required public bathrooms, the exclusive feel of “boutique,” and suggested requiring a financial contribution to schools. Favored Clearview/Miramar as causing the “least amount of harm” while still mourning the loss of the school property. Member Kane clarified Hawthorne was not part of the RFP and is on the March 6 agenda 2:57:03.
  • Wayne Spritz (Precinct 3) [2:59:08 - 3:00:40]: Raised concerns about parking insufficiency in all proposals, questioning how employee parking (estimated ~30 per shift) would be accommodated given proposed parking counts barely cover guest rooms. Asked if the Board had solutions beyond satellite parking. Member Kane affirmed the Board has considered parking 3:00:42.
  • Jared Germa (Precinct 3, HDC) [3:00:56 - 3:02:41]: Returned to suggest urban hotel solutions for parking, like valet services utilizing nearby religious institution lots, and establishing hotel-provided transit to/from train/Wonderland stations. Argued parking often works itself out if the venue is successful.

6. Hadley Next Steps Discussion 3:02:53 Member Kane outlined next steps: further public comment accepted Monday (Feb 12th), potential Board vote then to designate one developer to allow formal negotiations under MGL Ch. 30B. Emphasized this designation is procedural and doesn’t finalize anything. Explained the subsequent steps include negotiating detailed agreements (Land Development Agreement, potential Ground Lease - which provides ongoing town control similar to Michon), multiple future public votes by the Board on agreements and final design. He offered to present a timeline slide on Monday.

7. FY24 Q2 Budget & Financial Forecast 3:07:23 Finance Director Amy Sero presented [3:08:27 - 3:18:40]:

  • Overview: FY24 revenue likely meeting/exceeding estimates (boosted by unexpected $1.92M motor vehicle excise, 6% growth; T-Mobile cell tower renewal; strong investment income; Elm Place permit fee). FY24 expenditures projected over budget, projecting a potential deficit of $222,879 if trends continue.
  • Areas of Concern: Police/Fire OT (actively monitoring/meeting biweekly), Legal (outside counsel costs).
  • Savings/Efficiencies: Identified in Building/Facilities, HR. Health insurance showing projected surplus (lower participation).
  • Actions: FY24 budget freeze implemented (spending over $500 needs TA/Finance Director approval).
  • FY25 Budget Development Challenges: ~$1M decrease projected in local receipts (loss of bond interest income, lower rates); Pension increase ($277k); GIC Health Insurance projected 9.6% aggregate increase; Linn Dispatch contract increase ($103k); Debt increase ($568k); School Committee request increase ($1.3M/5.1%).
  • FY25 Mitigating Factors/Good News: Health insurance line projected only 1.5% increase initially (due to plan specifics/participation); State Aid likely to increase (Gov.’s 3% Chapter 70/UGA increase proposed, awaiting House Ways & Means confirmation); Exploring regional services, non-tax revenues, insurance shopping.
  • Timeline: TA Budget released by March 1; Presented to SB March 6; FinCom review March/April; Warrant closed April 17; Annual Town Meeting May 20.
  • 10-Year Forecast: Remains tight through FY31 (when pension funding normalizes).

8. Special Town Meeting Warrant (March 11) Review 3:19:37 Asst. TA Pete Peterson presented the draft articles. Finance Committee (FinCom) meeting concurrently Monday, hadn’t formally voted yet.

  • Art. 1 & 2 (School Funding - Ch. 70 & Transport): Board requested School Business Manager review language; defer recommendation pending FinCom vote 3:21:01.
  • Art. 3 (DPW CBA): Updated language presented (funding via FY24 operating budget transfer) 3:22:25. Board noted this assumes favorable vote on CBA in Executive Session Monday. Comment needs updating. Defer recommendation.
  • Art. 4 (Home Rule - Remove Ch. 61B): FinCom discussed favorably but no formal vote. Defer recommendation 3:24:18.
  • Art. 5 & 6 (Home Rule - Lower Voting Age/Pre-Registration): Member Fletcher moved to remove articles from Special TM warrant and move to Annual TM 3:34:41. Seconded by Member Thompson. Motion Failed 2-3 (Fletcher, Thompson in favor; Kane, Phelan, Eppley opposed) 3:35:03. Significant debate occurred: Kane/Phelan/Fitzgerald argued for keeping articles to foster needed debate on turnout/civic engagement, countering arguments against youth competence/influence. Fletcher/Thompson favored more time/public process before Town Meeting vote. Board agreed to include articles but potentially withhold favorable recommendation until more public engagement occurs. Counsel Lauren Goldberg invited for Monday for technical questions 3:25:36.
  • Art. 7 (Bylaw - Specialized Energy Code): Presented as aligned with Climate Action Plan 3:36:25. Member Kane questioned public process extent given financial impact on homeowners, while supporting the article 3:36:57. Member Thompson noted a public meeting is scheduled for Feb 27th and outreach planned 3:37:37. Motion by Member Thompson, seconded by TA Fitzgerald, for favorable action. Passed Unanimously [3:41:16 - 3:41:27].
  • Art. 8 (Pickleball Grant Appropriation): Language clarified using free cash, location within Phillips Park TBD during design 3:42:18. TA Fitzgerald reported on community engagement meeting scheduled (next Thurs 6pm Sr. Ctr), neighborhood outreach, and initial decibel tests showing minimal noise increase 3:43:36. Board discussed need for mitigation details (trees, permeable surface), Conservation Commission process/costs. Agreed to defer recommendation pending FinCom vote and further public input/mitigation planning 3:45:18.
  • Art. 9 (Increase Room Tax to 6%): FinCom discussed favorably but no formal vote. Defer recommendation 3:49:26.

9. Glover House Preservation Funding 3:50:34 TA Fitzgerald requested $30,000 from town ARPA funds to hire a historic preservation firm to prepare bid specifications (RFP) for salvaging elements of the General Glover House 3:51:05. Noted urgency (“racing against the clock”) and that existing fundraising ($25k) isn’t accessible yet. This RFP step is needed to determine actual costs before deciding what can be preserved. Member Thompson described ongoing fundraising efforts and the larger goal: RFP now, raise ~$200k by April to disassemble/store 60% of structure, then longer-term plan/funding ($1M+) for reconstruction 3:54:09. John Hentz(?) confirmed feasibility of moving fireplaces/reconstructing with period materials 4:01:33. Member Phelan expressed struggle understanding the value proposition vs. cost, questioning if saving just the hearth was explored [3:58:03, 4:00:05]. Chair Eppley supported moving to RFP for more info 3:53:40. Member Fletcher, citing budget constraints, unusually supported using ARPA funds for this “emergency” 4:04:01. Motion by Member Thompson to allocate $30k via ARPA revenue recognition, seconded by Member Fletcher. Passed 4-1 (Phelan opposed) [4:10:23 - 4:10:56].

10. Consent Agenda 4:10:29 Member Fletcher requested removal of Item 2 (Solid Waste Advisory Committee appointments) 4:10:57. Motion to approve consent agenda as amended (SHS Run, DPW on Water/Sewer Cmte, Minutes) passed unanimously 4:11:15.

11. Solid Waste Advisory Committee Appointments 4:11:24 Member Fletcher moved to adjust terms for the three new appointees (Neumann, Pelland, O?) to expire June 30, 2024 (instead of 2025) to better stagger committee terms 4:11:24. After brief clarification on impact 4:11:40, motion seconded by Member Phelan and passed unanimously [4:13:21 - 4:13:30]. Staff asked to place renewals on June agenda.

12. Select Board Time 4:13:37 Brief mention of bringing Health Budget/Opioid Settlement update back on Monday.

13. Adjournment 4:14:14 Meeting adjourned after 4 hours and 15 minutes.

Section 4: Executive Summary

This lengthy Swampscott Select Board meeting addressed a wide range of critical town issues, marked by significant public engagement and debate on topics including coastal resiliency, potential new amenities, the future of the Hadley School, and local democracy.

Coastal Resiliency and Pier Project Dominate Discussion: A major focus was the town’s vulnerability to climate change and the path forward for the deteriorating Fisherman’s Pier. The Climate Action Plan Committee Chair, Martha Smith, provided an overview of ongoing efforts and future risks, including significant projected flooding 0:54:04. The Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee (HWAC), represented by Chair Jackson Schultz and expert advisor Jay Borklin, presented stark evidence of recent storm damage to the pier and Fish House foundation 1:14:15. A key takeaway: the pier is past its design life and its potential collapse before replacement could jeopardize future permitting due to protected eelgrass beds, making replacement incredibly difficult and expensive 1:35:57. The estimated cost for a new, resilient pier ranges from $4M to $20M 1:41:57.

  • Significance: This discussion highlighted a critical tension: the state grant focuses narrowly on pier replacement, while broader, more costly resiliency needs (like seawall improvements or a ‘Living Reef’ breakwater) lack clear funding pathways 1:25:36. The debate touched upon a fundamental question for the coastal town: commit significant resources to “defend” the existing waterfront infrastructure, including the iconic pier and Fish House, or begin planning for “retreat” 1:59:02. While public comment and most board members leaned towards preserving the pier, the financial and logistical hurdles are substantial.

Hadley Hotel Proposals Elicit Strong Neighborhood Feedback: Residents, particularly abutters and those involved in town committees, provided extensive feedback on the three hotel proposals for the former Hadley School 2:20:56. Concerns centered on neighborhood impacts (scale, noise, light, traffic, parking, loss of playground/ballfield) [2:21:24, 2:28:29]. Opinions varied on which developer (Drew, Noannet, Clearview/Miramar) offered the best design, community fit, and preservation approach. Member Peter Kane assured residents of a multi-stage public process involving significant neighborhood input and Select Board approvals before any project proceeds 2:23:24.

  • Significance: The Board must weigh complex factors: developer qualifications, design suitability for the historic neighborhood, economic benefits, public access commitments, and neighbor concerns. The designation of a single developer, likely forthcoming, marks only the beginning of detailed negotiations and design refinement.

Pickleball Court Location Sparks Debate: Proposed pickleball courts at Phillips Park generated passionate arguments for and against [0:34:27 - 0:49:29]. Supporters cited demand for the popular amenity, while opponents voiced concerns about noise, parking loss, and particularly flooding in the low-lying, wetland-adjacent area. The Board deferred action on the grant funding article pending further public input (meeting scheduled) and review by the Finance Committee 3:45:18.

  • Significance: This reflects a common town conflict: balancing desire for new recreational facilities with impacts on immediate neighbors and environmental constraints. The outcome will depend on mitigation strategies and Town Meeting support.

Voting Age Articles Ignite Controversy: Proposed articles to lower the municipal voting age to 16 and allow 17-year-old pre-registration for future voting prompted the meeting’s most heated debate among the public and the Board itself [0:23:02, 3:25:52 - 3:36:13]. Supporters framed it as a vital step towards civic engagement and addressing chronic low turnout, while opponents questioned the maturity and independence of minors, fearing undue influence. A motion to postpone the articles to the Annual Town Meeting failed 2-3.

  • Significance: This debate touches fundamental questions about democratic participation and youth readiness. The articles remain on the Special Town Meeting warrant, promising further contentious discussion.

Glover House Preservation Takes First Step: The Board approved $30,000 in ARPA funds to develop bid specifications for salvaging elements of the historic General Glover House [3:50:34, Vote at 4:10:56]. This initial step aims to determine the cost and feasibility of preserving significant portions (estimated 60%) of the deteriorating structure, including its iconic hearth, potentially for future reconstruction.

  • Significance: This represents a commitment to exploring preservation despite significant future costs (potentially $200k for disassembly/storage, $1M+ for reconstruction) and uncertainty about a final plan or location. It balances historical importance against financial reality.

Financial Outlook: Finance Director Amy Sero reported a projected FY24 deficit ($223k) necessitating a budget freeze, largely driven by public safety overtime and legal costs 3:08:27. The FY25 budget faces significant challenges, including reduced investment income, rising pension/health insurance costs, and increased school/debt obligations, though potential state aid increases offer some relief. The long-term forecast remains tight.

  • Significance: The town faces ongoing fiscal pressure, requiring careful management and potentially difficult choices regarding services and investments in the upcoming budget cycle.

Other Actions: The Board approved the Black History Month proclamation 0:17:56, supported inclusion of a Specialized Energy Code bylaw on the warrant 3:41:27, approved most consent agenda items including committee appointments (with adjusted terms for Solid Waste) [4:11:15, 4:13:30].

Section 5: Analysis

This Select Board meeting showcased a local government grappling with complex, intertwined issues of aging infrastructure, climate change impacts, development pressures, and civic participation, all under tightening financial constraints. The dynamics observed, grounded solely in the transcript, offer several insights:

1. The Pier/Resiliency Dilemma: Systemic vs. Project Funding: The extended discussion on the pier and coastal resiliency highlighted a significant structural challenge [0:51:15 - 2:17:04]. The HWAC, particularly consultant Jay Borklin, effectively argued the technical urgency of replacing the pier before it collapses to avoid near-impossible permitting hurdles due to eelgrass protections 1:36:02. However, their presentation, driven by available state grant funding (Seaport Economic Council), focused heavily on the pier itself. This created friction with the perspective voiced by Capital Improvement Chair Ryan Hale 0:26:06 and echoed by Member Fletcher 1:02:43 – that broader coastal protection (seawalls, living reef, addressing Kleinfelder report findings) should be prioritized or at least advanced concurrently. Borklin acknowledged SEC’s historical focus on “hard infrastructure” limits their ability to fund holistic resiliency 1:25:36. This leaves the Town pursuing a funded, but potentially vulnerable, asset replacement while larger protective measures remain conceptual and unfunded. Member Kane’s push for a fundamental commitment to having a pier 1:53:59 aimed to cut through this complexity but perhaps sidestepped the inherent resource allocation conflict Member Thompson raised 1:57:03. The Board appears caught between seizing available funds for a visible project and tackling the larger, more daunting (and currently unfunded) challenge of comprehensive coastal defense.

2. Hadley Hotel: Process vs. Predetermination: Public comment on the Hadley proposals revealed strong, well-articulated opinions favoring different developers and designs [2:20:56 - 3:02:41]. Concerns about neighborhood impact were paramount for abutters [2:21:24, 2:28:29], while others focused on developer reputation 2:26:26, design aesthetics 2:42:03, preservation sensitivity [2:37:39, 2:42:03], or operational aspects 2:35:33. Member Kane’s detailed explanation of the upcoming public process, drawing parallels with Michon/Greenwood 2:23:24, served to reassure residents that their input would be solicited and considered after a developer is designated. This intervention seemed necessary to manage expectations and counter perceptions that decisions were already final. The effectiveness of this future process in genuinely addressing neighborhood concerns, particularly regarding scale and operations, will be critical to the project’s ultimate acceptance.

3. Pickleball Politics: Amenity vs. Abutters: The pickleball debate exemplified classic local land-use conflict [0:34:27 - 0:49:29]. Proponents emphasized demand and recreational benefit, downplaying noise concerns 0:34:27. Opponents marshalled arguments about tangible impacts: documented flooding 0:45:27, parking scarcity [0:45:27, 0:43:28], noise affecting vulnerable neighbors (nursing home) 0:43:28, and potential wetland issues [0:43:28, 0:47:34]. The reference to a prior Town Meeting defeat of courts at this location 0:40:57 suggests an uphill battle for proponents, requiring robust mitigation plans and persuasive arguments to overcome neighbor opposition and potential permitting hurdles (Conservation Commission). The Board’s deferral pending more information seems prudent given the strong opposition and technical questions raised 3:45:18.

4. Voting Age: Principled Stand or Political Strategy? The debate over lowering the voting age was the most ideologically charged [3:25:52 - 3:36:13]. Proponents (Kane, Phelan, Fitzgerald) presented it as a necessary experiment in civic education and engagement to combat voter apathy [1:05:00, 3:29:50]. Opponents (public commenter Spritz 0:23:02, implied by Fletcher’s questioning/motion [3:25:52, 3:34:41]) raised concerns about youth maturity, susceptibility to influence, and the quality of “ill-informed” votes. The arguments against felt somewhat paternalistic, as Member Phelan noted 3:29:50, while the push to keep it on the Special Town Meeting warrant despite calls for more process (Fletcher/Thompson 3:26:33) could be seen as strategically leveraging current momentum. The narrow 3-2 vote to keep the articles on the March warrant suggests this issue may continue to divide the Board and the community 3:35:03.

5. Glover House: Faith vs. Feasibility: The approval of $30k ARPA funds for the Glover House RFP represented a calculated risk [Vote at 4:10:56]. TA Fitzgerald and Member Thompson passionately argued for the historical significance and the need to act now [3:51:05, 3:54:09]. Member Phelan’s persistent questioning about the specific outcome, cost-effectiveness, and exploration of alternatives (like saving only the hearth) highlighted the considerable uncertainty surrounding the project’s ultimate feasibility and cost [3:58:03, 4:00:05, 4:03:23]. The Board ultimately opted for the “chicken-and-egg” approach, spending initial funds to get the information needed for a more concrete plan, implicitly accepting the risk that the desired full preservation may prove too costly or complex down the line. Member Fletcher’s unusual support for using ARPA funds, driven by the bleak general fund forecast, underscored the perceived urgency 4:04:01.

Overall Dynamics: The meeting demonstrated a Board actively engaging with complex issues and significant public input. Chair Eppley managed a very long meeting effectively. Member Kane frequently provided process context and drove debate, particularly on resiliency and voting. Member Fletcher consistently raised concerns about process and public input, often finding herself in the minority on key votes (voting age, Glover). Member Thompson played a key role in facilitating the climate and Glover discussions. Member Phelan asked probing, detailed questions across multiple topics, often highlighting financial or practical concerns. TA Fitzgerald provided administrative context and advocated strongly on certain issues (pier, Glover). The sheer length (over 4 hours) and breadth of topics reflect the significant challenges and opportunities facing Swampscott.