Swampscott Select Board Meeting Analysis: April 17, 2024

Section 1: Agenda

15:38 Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
15:56 Public Comments
- Comments primarily focused on the Hawthorne property process, library proposal, town governance/communication issues, and Board of Assessors conflict.
33:51 New and Old Business: Discussion & Possible Vote on Use of Town ARPA Funds
- Presentation of revised recommendations by Town Administrator.
- Motion and debate regarding allocating funds primarily to Fisherman’s Beach infrastructure vs. a broader set of town projects.
- Vote on Fisherman’s Beach focused motion (Failed).
- Motion and debate regarding Town Administrator’s revised broader allocation proposal.
- Vote on broader allocation proposal (Passed).
1:33:50 New and Old Business: Discussion & Review of Annual Town Meeting Warrant of 5/20/24
- Review of meeting schedule and warrant closing timeline.
- Article-by-article review, discussion, and potential recommendations (including Capital Plan, CPA, MBTA Zoning, Leaf Blower Enforcement, etc.).
2:27:20 Select Board Time
- Member comments on Hawthorne process feedback.
- Announcements (AV Crew, Rabies Clinic, Voting Dates, Age/Dementia Friendly Initiative).
2:35:43 Adjournment

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Select Board Chair (David Eppley): [Speaker 4] (Leads meeting, comments on SRF, housing study, makes motion on Ch 90/MBTA Zoning/Elm Place Easements, Senior Center announcement)
Select Board Member (Peter Spellios): [Speaker 3] (Engages in ARPA debate, discusses resiliency, housing, safety; asks clarifying questions on warrant articles and process; seconds ARPA motion; suggests CPA policy discussion; identifies issues with liquor license/leaf blower articles)
Select Board Member (Doug Thompson): [Speaker 1] (Argues against ARPA for pipes, uses whiteboard for funding explanation, defends broader ARPA use, makes alternative ARPA motion, explains resiliency/CPA details, reflects on Hawthorne process)
Select Board Member (MaryEllen Fletcher): [Speaker 6] (Makes ARPA motion for Fisherman’s Beach, argues for infrastructure focus/rate relief, questions other ARPA uses, asks about Retirement Board article/ADA bathroom zoning, abstains on several warrant votes pending more info, provides announcements)
Select Board Member (Katie Phelan): [Speaker 5] (Seconds ARPA motion, questions EPA status/funding priorities, asks clarifying questions on ARPA/Capital/Opioid funds, supports CPA policy but questions percentage, concerned about taxpayer burden, suggests waiting for consensus on votes)
Town Administrator (Sean Fitzgerald): [Speaker 2] (Presents revised ARPA proposal, discusses EPA meetings/MS4 work/funding mechanisms, provides details on warrant articles, discusses school stabilization MOUs, addresses leaf blower language)
Finance Staff (Patrick): [Speaker 13] (Provides details on prior year bills, grant funding specifics for trails)
Finance Director (Amy): [Speaker 15] (Provides details on opioid fund transfers)
Board Member (Name not stated): [Speaker 16] (Leads Pledge, calls on first speaker, brief procedural interjections)
Resident (Brian Watson): [Speaker 7] (Architect, critiques Horton site process as “abysmal,” opaque, lacking comparative concepts)
Resident (Richard Smith, Historical Commission Member): [Speaker 11] (Architect, comments on lengthy library process, suggests broader, less architectural public engagement for Horton site)
Resident (Art Freeman): [Speaker 12] (Comments on ARPA/Fisherman’s Beach funding, critiques town’s history with property decisions - citing Bertram House, Temple Israel, suggests Hawthorne remain open space)
Resident (Tessia Vassilio, Chair of Board of Assessors): [Speaker 9] (References Lynn Item op-ed, alleges Town Administrator spread mistruths, engaged in intimidation, pressured Assessors regarding valuations, particularly concerning Select Board members)
Resident (Mike Kelleher): [Speaker 8] (Cites “broken system” in town government referencing lack of communication with Library Trustees/Assessors/Police/Fire; critiques Hawthorne/library proposal process and cost, suggests alternative property)
Resident (Ted Kennedy, Town Meeting Member): [Speaker 14] (Defends experience and qualifications of Board of Assessors members, warns Select Board about public dissatisfaction)
Unknown Speaker: [Speaker 10] (Appears at start, no content provided)
Unknown Speaker: [Speaker 17] (Makes brief procedural interjections during board discussion)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Call to Order & Pledge: The meeting began with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Board Member [Speaker 16] 15:38.

Public Comments [15:56 - 33:51]: Several residents voiced significant concerns, particularly regarding the process for determining the future of the Hawthorne property (former Hadley Elementary).

Resident Brian Watson, an architect and former Planning/MAPC board member, characterized the process as “abysmal,” disjointed, opaque, and lacking comparative plan analysis, stating the library proposal “plunked on the town through no process” [17:31, 18:08]. He suggested a more structured, comparative planning approach.
Resident Richard Smith, also an architect and Historical Commission member, echoed process concerns and noted the likely decade-long timeline for a new library project, questioning tying up the site for that long 20:14. He emphasized the difficulty laypeople have understanding architectural plans and suggested different engagement methods 21:57.
Resident Art Freeman urged using ARPA funds for Fisherman’s Beach 22:51 and critiqued the town’s historical handling of property acquisitions (citing Bertram House, Temple Israel) 24:12, advocating for keeping the Hawthorne site as open space.
Resident Tessia Vassilio, Chair of the Board of Assessors, directed attention to a Lynn Item op-ed and alleged the Town Administrator had spread mistruths, engaged in intimidation tactics (mentioning ethics fines, criminal penalties, Town Counsel involvement), pressured the Assessors to “rubber-stamp values,” and retaliated for her questioning valuations, including those of Select Board members [25:43 - 28:32]. She welcomed public dialogue.
Resident Mike Kelleher cited a “broken system” in town government communication 29:16 and strongly criticized the $30 million oceanfront library proposal emerging from what he felt was insufficient public input 29:47, suggesting alternate properties or a town-wide ballot question.
Resident Ted Kennedy defended the experience of the Board of Assessors members 32:12 and warned the Select Board about growing public dissatisfaction 33:38.

ARPA Funds Discussion [33:51 - 1:33:39]: Town Administrator (TA) Sean Fitzgerald presented revised ARPA spending recommendations 34:13, removing the mobile town hall and proposing funds for: ADA bathroom at Phillips Beach ($350k est.), pedestrian safety ($500k), parks ($400k), historic preservation ($100k), climate manager ($100k), public housing feasibility study ($200k), economic development study ($100k), Fisherman’s Beach IDDE work ($50k - to expedite), resiliency projects ($200k), and public health programs ($121k).

Member MaryEllen Fletcher immediately moved to allocate $1.7 million ARPA funds for Fisherman’s Beach sewer work and $182k for MS4 permit work, seconded by Member Katie Phelan 40:43. An extensive and detailed debate followed, illuminating differing philosophies on the best use of these one-time federal funds.

Member Fletcher argued this addresses a critical, known infrastructure need, aligns with survey results and committee recommendations, provides ratepayer relief, and is a higher necessity than other proposed items 41:11.
Member Doug Thompson strongly countered, arguing ARPA’s flexibility should be used for projects not fundable via other means like the Sewer Enterprise Fund or State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans 43:26. He used a whiteboard [47:29 - 55:41] to illustrate existing and planned funding mechanisms for King’s Beach ($6.5M spent, $2.1M ARPA allocated, SRF application pending) and Fisherman’s Beach ($1.7M needed, SRF application pending), asserting the primary disagreement was financing mechanism, not the need for pipe repair.
TA Fitzgerald noted the EPA desires more “aggressive” action on beach cleanups 56:44 and acknowledged historical underfunding of sewer infrastructure while trying to balance multiple town priorities.
Chair David Eppley referenced State Representative Jenny Armini’s encouragement to use SRF loans due to low interest and potential forgiveness 1:02:31. He argued ARPA could fund other needed infrastructure (like the ADA bathroom) and strategic investments (like the housing feasibility study with potential for large state returns) [1:04:14, 1:07:21].
The debate touched on the interpretation of “infrastructure” in past surveys (Phelan) 1:04:36, the age of the survey data (Thompson) 1:06:19, the capacity to spend allocated funds quickly (TA Fitzgerald/Thompson) 1:00:41, and the concept of “nice-to-haves” versus essential needs (Fletcher/Phelan vs. Thompson/Spellios) [1:11:47 onwards]. Member Thompson framed ARPA as a unique chance to fund all critical needs simultaneously 1:10:42.

Member Fletcher’s motion failed on a vote (Members Fletcher, Phelan voting Aye; Chair Eppley, Members Thompson, Spellios voting Nay based on subsequent motion/votes) 1:17:52.

Member Thompson then moved to approve the TA’s revised list of ARPA allocations 1:19:09, seconded by Member Peter Spellios 1:19:56. Member Spellios supported this, emphasizing the need to address multiple lagging priorities (resiliency, housing, safety) in parallel and empower staff 1:19:56. Further discussion clarified the resiliency project funding ($200k) aims to update climate models and pursue larger grants for significant mitigation strategies, potentially including managed retreat [1:26:52, 1:31:04]. Member Thompson’s motion passed on a vote (Chair Eppley, Members Thompson, Spellios voting Aye; Members Fletcher, Phelan voting Nay) 1:33:17.

Town Meeting Warrant Review [1:33:50 - 2:27:20]: The Board reviewed articles for the May 20 Town Meeting warrant, aiming to finalize by April 29. Many financial articles were held for final numbers or recommendations from the Finance Committee (FinCom) and Capital Improvement Committee (CIC). Key actions/discussions included:

Retirement Board Article: Not yet included; discussion about needing supporting information and vetting by Town Counsel 1:37:18. TA to follow up.
Article 5 (Utility Stabilization Fund) & 10 (SPED Reserve Fund): Held pending review of MOUs governing fund use [1:44:04, 1:50:40]. Member Phelan questioned the necessity of the Utility Fund for what might be a temporary issue 1:44:21. Member Spellios requested examples of past need 1:45:04.
Article 13 (Community Preservation Act - CPA): After discussion initiated by Member Spellios on its policy significance 1:53:10, a straw poll indicated majority board support (4-1, Fletcher seeking more info) for the CPA concept, pending FinCom review of specifics (1.5% surcharge, exemptions) 1:55:05.
Article 14 (Chapter 90 Road Funds): Voted favorable action 5-0 1:57:22.
Article 15 (Capital Projects): TA presented revised plan totaling $7.1M 2:12:09, removing pier/trail funding (redundant/covered elsewhere) but adding $3.5M ($1.8M King’s, $1.7M Fisherman’s) for sewer work funded via Sewer Enterprise borrowing 2:02:43. Member Thompson questioned the immediate need/spend capacity for the $1.8M King’s portion 2:05:04. Member Phelan noted the cumulative taxpayer burden ($90/yr sewer rate increase + CPA) 2:08:17. Held for CIC/FinCom recommendations.
Article 17 (ADU Technical Correction): Voted favorable action 4-0-1 (Fletcher abstained) 2:15:51.
Article 18 (Liquor Establishment Zoning): Held for language clarification after Member Spellios identified potential technical inaccuracies 2:16:25.
Article 19 (Nonconforming Structures Zoning): Voted favorable action 5-0 2:18:09.
Article 20 (MBTA Communities 3A Zoning): Voted favorable action 4-0-1 (Fletcher abstained) after brief discussion on its significance 2:19:59.
Article 21 (Leaf Blower Enforcement): Enforcement language based on Marblehead’s bylaw. TA agreed to correct language that incorrectly implied a year-round ban 2:21:06. Held for clarification on whether fines apply to homeowners or landscapers 2:21:21.
Article 24 (Elm Place Easements): Voted favorable action 4-0-1 (Fletcher abstained pending ZBA documents) 2:23:21, but agreed to likely revisit next week for full consensus. Needs number of parking spaces filled in.
Article 25 (Land/Water Conservation Grant): Requires gross appropriation ($225k) for trail work, offset by 50% state grant reimbursement. Held for FinCom recommendation 2:25:04.

Select Board Time [2:27:20 - 2:35:43]:

Member Thompson addressed the public comments on the Hawthorne process, acknowledging resident frustration, the work done, the need to clarify the process going forward, and potentially explore alternatives beyond the single concept presented 2:27:23. He noted the lack of a broader reuse committee structure similar to Hadley.
Member Fletcher thanked the AV crew and announced upcoming rabies clinic and voting dates 2:33:44.
Chair Eppley announced the “Forget Me Not” Age and Dementia Friendly business initiative kickoff events at local restaurants 2:34:22.

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned by vote 2:35:43.

Section 4: Executive Summary

This Swampscott Select Board meeting focused heavily on allocating federal ARPA funds and preparing the warrant for the May 20 Annual Town Meeting, alongside significant public commentary on town governance and the Hawthorne property process.

ARPA Funds Allocated to Diverse Projects, Not Solely Sewer Repair: Following considerable debate, the Select Board voted 3-2 to allocate the remaining ~$2.1 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds across a range of town priorities 1:33:17. This decision rejected an alternative proposal focused solely on funding immediate sewer repairs at Fisherman’s Beach 1:17:52. The approved projects include an ADA-accessible bathroom at Phillips Beach, pedestrian safety improvements, park upgrades, historic preservation support, funding for a climate action manager position, a feasibility study for redeveloping public housing, an economic development study, seed money for Fisherman’s Beach pollution detection, resiliency initiatives, and public health programs 34:13.

Significance: This represents a strategic choice to use flexible, one-time federal funds for needs that supporters argued are difficult to fund through traditional budgets or dedicated funds (like the Sewer Enterprise Fund). The decision means larger sewer infrastructure projects (including $3.5M proposed in the capital budget) will rely on bonding, potential state loans (SRF), and likely necessitate sewer rate increases (estimated at ~$90/year for the proposed capital work 2:04:49), rather than being offset by ARPA grants. The debate highlighted fundamental differences among Board members regarding fiscal strategy and prioritizing critical needs versus leveraging unique funding opportunities.

Key Town Meeting Articles Advanced: The Board reviewed and advanced several significant articles for the Town Meeting warrant:

Community Preservation Act (CPA): A proposal (Article 13) to adopt the CPA via a 1.5% property tax surcharge (with exemptions) received conceptual support from a majority of the Board 1:55:05. If approved by Town Meeting, it requires a town-wide ballot vote in November. Significance: CPA adoption would create a dedicated funding stream for affordable housing, historic preservation, open space, and potentially recreation projects, but represents a new tax burden.
MBTA Communities Zoning: The Board recommended (4-0-1) the zoning changes (Article 20) required by state law to allow denser, multi-family housing near the commuter rail station (primarily Vinnin Square and parts of Essex Street) 2:19:59. Significance: This fulfills a state mandate tied to grant eligibility but alters zoning in key areas, a topic of previous town debate.
Major Capital Investments: The recommended Capital Plan (Article 15) includes approximately $7.1 million in projects, notably $3.5 million designated for sewer pipe remediation at King’s and Fisherman’s Beaches, to be funded primarily through borrowing via the Sewer Enterprise Fund 1:57:30. Significance: This represents a substantial investment in critical infrastructure, likely impacting sewer rates, and reflects ongoing efforts to address beach water quality mandated by regulatory agencies like the EPA.
Leaf Blower Enforcement: An article (Article 21) establishing fines ($300 per offense) for violating the existing seasonal ban on gas-powered leaf blowers was discussed. Language needs correction and clarification before a final recommendation [2:21:06, 2:21:21]. Significance: This addresses resident complaints about noise and pollution but requires clear and fair enforcement mechanisms.

Public Concerns Over Hawthorne Process and Town Governance: Public comment featured strong criticism of the planning process for the Hawthorne property (former Hadley school). Residents, including architects and former town officials, described the process as opaque, lacking comparative options, and resulting in a library proposal that felt imposed rather than community-derived [16:14, 20:14, 28:50]. Member Thompson later acknowledged these frustrations during Select Board time 2:27:23. Separately, the Chair of the Board of Assessors, Tessia Vassilio, made serious public allegations against the Town Administrator concerning attempts to discredit her and interfere with the Assessors’ duties, including pressure related to valuations 25:43. Other commenters echoed concerns about a “broken system” of communication within town government 28:50.

Significance: These comments highlight resident dissatisfaction and potential distrust regarding major town projects and internal administrative conduct. The Hawthorne feedback may necessitate adjustments to the planning approach. The Assessors’ conflict points to significant internal friction requiring resolution.

Section 5: Analysis

This Select Board meeting transcript reveals a board grappling with significant strategic decisions amidst vocal public concerns and internal tensions. The proceedings offered insights into differing governance philosophies and the challenges of balancing competing priorities with limited resources.

ARPA Debate: A Clash of Fiscal Philosophies: The debate over ARPA fund allocation [33:51 - 1:33:39] was the meeting’s centerpiece and most revealing dynamic. The 3-2 split vote reflected two distinct approaches:

Members Fletcher and Phelan advocated for using the “free” federal money to address the most politically salient and widely acknowledged infrastructure crisis (Fisherman’s Beach sewer issues), thereby providing direct ratepayer relief 41:11. Their arguments emphasized immediate necessity, responsiveness to prior surveys/committee recommendations, and fiscal prudence in avoiding borrowing when grant funds are available.
Chair Eppley and Members Thompson and Spellios championed leveraging ARPA’s unique flexibility for a broader suite of needs—housing feasibility, climate resilience, economic development—that lack dedicated funding streams [43:26, 1:07:21, 1:19:56]. Their position relied on utilizing established mechanisms (Sewer Enterprise Fund, SRF loans, bonding) for the sewer work, arguing this was the intended purpose of those mechanisms, even if it meant rate increases. Member Thompson’s whiteboard presentation 47:29 was a key tactic to frame the sewer funding as already planned, albeit through different means.
Effectiveness: The prevailing argument, favoring broader strategic investment over immediate rate relief for a single issue, suggests the majority prioritized long-term planning and addressing multiple underfunded areas over the politically simpler path of dedicating ARPA solely to the high-profile sewer problem. This decision commits the town to pursuing the sewer work through mechanisms that will directly impact rates, a potentially challenging proposition politically but one deemed fiscally appropriate by the majority.

Public Comment: Forceful Critique and Internal Conflict Laid Bare: Public comment was notably critical and impactful.

The consistent, detailed critiques of the Hawthorne planning process by multiple knowledgeable residents (Watson, Smith, Kelleher) [16:14, 20:14, 28:50] appeared potent. The arguments focused on procedural failures (opacity, lack of comparative analysis) rather than just opposing a library. Member Thompson’s later acknowledgement 2:27:23 indicates the criticism registered and may force a recalibration of the approach to this high-stakes project.
The statement by Assessors Chair Vassilio 25:43 was exceptionally direct, alleging specific instances of intimidation and improper pressure from the Town Administrator. Supported by comments from Kelleher 28:50 and Kennedy 32:12, this brought a significant internal administrative conflict into the public forum. The lack of immediate response from the Board or TA during the meeting leaves the resolution unclear based on this transcript alone, but the public airing of such serious charges against the town’s chief administrator is itself significant and likely portends future developments or necessary interventions.

Warrant Review: Methodical Progress Tempered by Caution and Deferral: The warrant review demonstrated a generally methodical approach, but also highlighted areas of caution and reliance on other bodies.

The Board readily approved technical corrections (ADU, Nonconforming Structures) and state mandates (MBTA Zoning, Chapter 90) where the path was clear.
However, on major financial or policy initiatives (CPA, Capital Plan, Stabilization Funds), the default was often to defer final recommendations pending FinCom/CIC input, even when conceptual agreement existed (as shown by the CPA straw poll 1:55:05). This reflects adherence to process but can delay clear signals to the public and Town Meeting members.
Member Fletcher’s consistent abstentions on items where she felt information was lacking [e.g., 2:16:00, 2:23:23] underscored a cautious stance, contrasting with other members’ willingness to move forward based on presented information or staff assurances.
The identification of technical flaws in proposed warrant language (Liquor Establishments, Leaf Blowers) by Member Spellios 2:16:25 and the TA 2:21:06 highlighted the importance of detailed scrutiny before finalization.