Swampscott Select Board Meeting Review - November 20, 2024

Section 1: Agenda

Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance 0:01:20 (Led by special guest Connor Maloney 0:02:21)
Agenda Adjustment: Removal of Item C.8 (Clarke School MOU) 0:01:20
Public Comment (Non-Pine Street/VFW Topics) 0:02:58
- Jackson Schultz (Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee appointments) 0:03:52
- Mike Kellenberg (Youth basketball practice times/gym availability) 0:06:45
- Katie Arrington (Select Board transparency/executive sessions/Pine Street project handling) 0:08:52
- Frank Smith (Transparency concerns/Open Meeting Law/Pine Street VFW decision) 0:12:28
- Mary DiCello (Volunteerism, town planning, impact on VFW neighborhood) 0:14:29
Motion to Reorder Agenda: Move Item C.9 (Land Disposition Agreement for 10 New Ocean/12-24 Pine Street) to be discussed next 0:18:29
Discussion & Possible Vote on Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) for 10 New Ocean Street and 12-24 Pine Street (Veterans Housing/VFW Project) 0:18:46
- Project Timeline & Background Presentation (Margie Golaska) 0:19:06
- Select Board Q&A on Project History, Options, Meetings 0:28:01
- Select Board Q&A on Housing Type (Veterans Preference, Eligibility) w/ AHT Rep & Town Counsel 0:36:27
- Public Comment/Q&A on Housing Type/Eligibility 0:48:58
- Select Board Q&A/Discussion on LDA Document 0:41:43
- Discussion of Project Timeline & Permitting Process (Town Counsel) 1:19:03
- Public Comment/Discussion on Project Options (One vs. Two Lots), Town Meeting Vote/RFP Fidelity, Building Size/Impact, VFW Location (Recharts proposal), Transparency/Process Concerns 1:24:10
- Board Member Disagreements/Debate on Process & Path Forward 1:49:06
- Further Public Comment (Abutter concerns, Final thoughts from VFW members/supporters) 2:02:59
- No vote taken on LDA 2:08:26
Motion to pull National Grid Petition from Consent Agenda 02:09:57
Discussion & Vote on National Grid Petition (11 Boynton Street) 02:10:24
Water & Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee (WSIAC) Update from Chair Elizabeth Smith 02:11:39
Discussion on King’s Beach Proposed UV Disinfection System 02:29:41
Discussion & Vote to Approve Collective Bargaining Agreement (AFSCME Council 93, Local 2610 Administrative Professionals) 02:40:21
Update on ARPA Funds 02:41:08
- Coastal Resiliency Analysis Funding 02:41:58
- Proposal for Direct Payments to Residents 2:56:07
Discussion & Vote to Open the Warrant for Special Town Meeting (Dec 9, 2024) 3:05:01
Review of Special Town Meeting Warrant (Dec 9, 2024) 3:05:18
- Article 1: Prior Year Bills 3:05:36
- Article 2: FY25 Operating Budget Amendment (CBAs) 3:09:04
- Article 3: Transfer Free Cash (Homeless/Foster Care Transportation) 3:10:26
- Article 4: Final Settlement (Eminent Domain - Humphrey Street) 3:10:49
- Article 5: Transfer Free Cash (Adjustments to Tax Rates) 3:14:11
- Article 6: Appropriation for Capital Projects (Auditorium HVAC, Senior Center HVAC Design) 3:18:35
- Articles 7 & 8: Amend General Bylaws (Alternate Members for ZBA & Planning Board) 3:22:09
- Article 9: Amend General Bylaws (Demolition by Neglect) 3:22:48
Discussion & Vote to Close the Warrant for Special Town Meeting (Dec 9, 2024) 3:29:50
Consent Agenda Items 3:31:04
- Discussion & Vote to Approve Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee Appointments 3:31:47
- Approval of Minutes (11/6/24) - Deferred 3:31:36
Town Administrator’s Report 3:39:42 (Presented briefly)
Select Board Time 3:40:49
- Request for Police/Fire Chief Update on Hiring Practices 3:40:52
- Final Public Comment (Mr. Kelly - Veterans Housing/VFW/Town Future) 3:41:47
Adjournment 3:47:51

Section 2: Speaking Attendees

Mary Ellen Fletcher (Select Board Chair): [Speaker 1]
Neal Duffy (Select Board Member): [Speaker 2]
Elizabeth Smith (WSIAC Chair): [Speaker 3]
Kim Martin Epstein (Affordable Housing Trust Representative): [Speaker 4]
Angela Ippolito (Planning Board Member): [Speaker 5]
Katie Phelan (Select Board Member): [Speaker 6]
Margie Golaska (Director of Community & Economic Development): [Speaker 7]
David Grishman (Select Board Member): [Speaker 8]
Danielle Leonard (Select Board Member): [Speaker 9]
Kurt James (Town Counsel - KP Law): [Speaker 10]
Mr. Kelly (Resident/Veteran): [Speaker 11]
Amy O’Neil (Town Accountant): [Speaker 12]
Barbara DiPietro (VFW Auxiliary SVP / Resident) / Christine Johnson (Resident/Abutter): [Speaker 13] (Note: Tag used for two different speakers sequentially)
Connor Maloney (Youth Guest) / Katie Arrington (Resident): [Speaker 14] (Note: Tag used for two different speakers sequentially)
Gino Cresta (Acting Town Administrator / DPW Director): [Speaker 15]
Mary DiCello (Town Meeting Member / VFW Auxiliary Member / Resident): [Speaker 16]
Patrick Luddy (Assistant Town Accountant): [Speaker 17]
Steve Peterson (Friend of VFW Post / Associate Member): [Speaker 18]
Jackson Schultz (Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee Chair / Resident): [Speaker 19]
Susan Bishop (VFW Auxiliary President / Business Owner / Salem Resident): [Speaker 20]
Mike Kellenberg (Resident) / Steven (National Grid Representative): [Speaker 21] (Note: Tag used for two different speakers sequentially)
Charlie Patios (Resident / Housing Authority Chair): [Speaker 22]
Ryan Hale (Climate Action Committee Member - Online): [Speaker 23]
Tom Driscoll (Resident / Retirement Board Member): [Speaker 24]
Frank Smith (Resident): [Speaker 25]
Adrienne Javery (VFW Volunteer/Auxiliary Member / Lynn Resident): [Speaker 26]
David Emerton (VFW Post 1240 Quartermaster / Lynn Resident): [Speaker 27]
Unidentified Speaker / Background Audio: [Speaker 28] (Note: This tag appears frequently but often corresponds to brief interjections, agreements, or possibly technical staff/inaudible background comments. Not assigned a specific identity due to ambiguity.)

Section 3: Meeting Minutes

Call to Order & Opening: Chair Mary Ellen Fletcher called the meeting to order 0:01:20. Item C.8 (Clarke School MOU) was removed from the agenda. Following the Pledge of Allegiance led by guest Connor Maloney 0:02:21, Chair Fletcher announced that public comment related to the Pine Street/VFW project would be taken during that specific agenda item.

Public Comment (Non-Pine Street):

Jackson Schultz, Chair of the Harbor and Waterfront Advisory Committee (HWAC), expressed objections to the HWAC appointments being proposed by liaison Danielle Leonard, advocating for his preferred candidates, Tom Peleria and Al Williams, instead 0:03:52.
Mike Kellenberg voiced frustration about late practice times for youth basketball due to the new school gym reportedly not being fully available 0:06:57.
Katie Arrington criticized Chair Fletcher and the Select Board for a perceived lack of transparency, citing numerous executive sessions discussing unspecified land parcels without released minutes, and specifically objected to the handling of the Pine Street/VFW project decisions being made non-publicly. She mentioned filing an Open Meeting Law complaint 0:08:52. Chair Fletcher later acknowledged receipt of the complaint and stated it was sent to Town Counsel 0:29:35.
Frank Smith echoed concerns about excessive executive sessions and lack of transparency regarding the potential reversal of a decision to preserve the VFW post. He called for Chair Fletcher’s resignation as Chair if an Open Meeting Law violation is found 0:12:28.
Mary DiCello, Town Meeting Member and VFW Auxiliary member, emphasized the importance of volunteerism and collaboration, reflected on past town decisions impacting the VFW neighborhood, and stressed the need for thoughtful planning rather than emotional reactions, noting the town lacked a planner for two years 0:14:29.

Agenda Reordering: Member David Grishman moved to take Agenda Item C.9 (Land Disposition Agreement for 10 New Ocean/12-24 Pine Street) out of order 0:18:29. The motion passed implicitly as the discussion commenced.

Discussion: Land Disposition Agreement (LDA) for 10 New Ocean/12-24 Pine Street (Veterans Housing/VFW): 0:18:46

Presentation: Community Development Director Margie Golaska presented a timeline of the project, starting with the Spring 2023 Town Meeting vote authorizing acquisition and disposition of land for affordable veteran housing and a VFW center 0:19:06. She recounted the RFP process, selection of B’nai B’rith as the developer, and subsequent discussions with VFW leadership where the initially proposed VFW space (1500 sq ft) was deemed insufficient. Golaska outlined three options explored: VFW integrated into the project (space insufficient), keeping the VFW building and building housing adjacent (developer deemed infeasible due to parking/construction costs), or relocating the VFW. The proposed LDA reflects building up to 42 units, requiring VFW relocation. A concept drawing showed a three-story structure with adjacent parking 0:26:31.
Board Q&A/Discussion (Project History/Options): Member Grishman questioned the dates and public nature of meetings mentioned in the presentation 0:28:01; Golaska clarified they were project meetings with VFW leadership and two Select Board members, not formal public Select Board meetings. Member Duffy sought clarification on B’nai B’rith’s assessment of building 42 units solely on the 12-24 Pine Street lot 0:29:46. Golaska confirmed feasibility but noted inability to meet parking requirements and increased building height/density (potentially 5-6 stories considering flood elevation/mechanics). Chair Fletcher highlighted the flood zone requiring elevation 0:32:34. Duffy noted this applied to both one-lot and two-lot options, suggesting the core difference was one story in height 0:32:53. Fletcher emphasized the reduced massing with the two-lot approach 0:33:07. Member Grishman inquired about the square footage comparison to a previously approved market-rate project 0:33:39. Planning Board Member Angela Ippolito provided details on the prior 21-unit project (35,589 sq ft, 37 ft height, parking underneath) 0:34:20. Member Phelan clarified the prior project’s design differed from B’nai B’rith’s proposal and noted B’nai B’rith found underground parking cost-prohibitive 0:35:44.
Board Q&A/Discussion (Housing Type/Eligibility): Chair Fletcher raised concerns heard from veterans that the project was not truly veterans’ housing 0:36:27. Golaska clarified it’s affordable housing (55+) with a local preference for veterans 0:37:19. Affordable Housing Trust Representative Kim Martin Epstein elaborated, stating it has always been intended as veterans’ preference housing with supportive services 0:38:11. She explained the preference system: affordability screening first, then veterans preference. If insufficient qualifying veterans apply, other income-eligible applicants (55+) could fill units. Town Counsel Kurt James read the LDA language specifying 42 one-bedroom units (55+), with up to 23 units for <=30% AMI and the rest for <=60% AMI, prioritizing veterans first, then Swampscott residents, as permitted by law 0:42:22.
Public Comment/Q&A (Housing Type/Eligibility): Charlie Patios questioned the 55+ age restriction, noting a younger returning veteran needing housing wouldn’t qualify 0:49:18. Epstein acknowledged this limitation, explaining the project’s design/density focused on smaller units for older individuals to achieve feasibility, not precluding other types of housing projects elsewhere 0:50:07. Town Counsel James added the age limit was necessary for state funding/financial feasibility 0:52:08. David Emerton (VFW Quartermaster) stated he was assured by a board member days prior it would be only for veterans 0:52:59. Epstein reiterated the preference system: veterans who meet income limits get first priority; if all units can be filled this way, they will be 0:53:58. Duffy suggested collective effort to ensure qualifying veterans apply 0:55:34. Phelan mentioned plans for a task force to assist veterans with applications 0:56:34. Susan Bishop (VFW Auxiliary President) asserted it was not veterans housing as originally envisioned and criticized the process 0:57:36. Adrienne Javery (VFW Volunteer) urged prioritizing veterans in need over non-veterans, citing homeless veterans known to the Post 1:03:07. Fletcher assured her qualifying veterans would be the priority. Tom Driscoll asked about the definition of “affordable,” leading Epstein to explain it’s based on HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for the Boston-Cambridge MSA, not local market rates, detailing the income thresholds for 30% and 60% AMI 1:04:48. Driscoll followed up on whether higher-income qualifying veterans might get preference; Epstein clarified the income limits apply first 1:11:10. Grishman noted the VSO identified ~400 Swampscott veterans aged 55+ and the plan for a Veterans Housing Committee 1:10:00. Patios suggested taking back parking spaces leased to the adjacent cannabis shop 1:15:47; Town Counsel James confirmed the lease would be terminated, making spaces available 1:16:46. Golaska noted this removes $2,000/month ($24k/year) income currently paid by the town to the VFW for those spaces 1:17:07. Grishman highlighted this income loss; Fletcher countered potential savings if VFW relocated to town-owned Recharts 1:17:42.
Board/Public Discussion (LDA, Timeline, Project Options, Process): Duffy expressed reluctance to review LDA details without more public input on the broader options (one vs. two lots, VFW location) 0:44:27. Fletcher asked for specific LDA questions while Town Counsel was available 0:46:21. Member Leonard suggested focusing public comment first on the housing type definition 0:48:02. Town Counsel James outlined the projected timeline if the LDA/Ground Lease were approved by Dec 1st: due diligence (90 days), parcel subdivision (120 days), schematic design submission (by ~May 2025), 40B Comprehensive Permit process (target approval Jan 2026), financing applications (potential approval Summer 2026 or 2027), construction start (Spring 2027 or 2028), occupancy (Fall 2029) 1:19:03. He clarified the VFW site would need to be vacated upon construction closing (2027/2028) 1:23:55. Planning Board Member Ippolito provided detailed history of the prior 22-unit proposal, neighborhood concerns (size, shadow, traffic, flood zone proximity to Stacy’s Brook culvert), and ZBA variances granted 1:24:19. She argued the current proposal (42 units on one lot) contradicts the Town Meeting vote (Articles 10 & 11) which envisioned using both lots for housing and a new VFW post, a basis on which she and likely others voted to acquire the Pine Street lot 1:27:42. She also noted the developer’s initial response to the RFP fell short of providing the requested 3,000 sq ft VFW space 1:39:04. Duffy summarized the dilemma: the original Town Meeting vote envisioned using both parcels and having a VFW post on site; neither current option (VFW relocated/housing on two lots, OR VFW stays/housing on one lot) fulfills both aspects 1:35:53. Epstein urged finding a solution despite imperfections, emphasizing the need for housing and the lengthy timeline if decisions are delayed 1:40:23. Phelan echoed the need for compromise to achieve “something extremely incredible” while meeting diverse stakeholder needs 1:42:51. Ippolito suggested exploring smarter use of both lots to mitigate impacts 1:45:36. Phelan reiterated the submitted drawing is conceptual, the LDA caps height at 3 stories, and detailed design is subject to future ZBA review 1:47:06. Duffy noted the LDA does decide the VFW location 1:48:54.
Board Disagreement/Debate: Grishman strongly criticized discussing project options (height, parking, VFW location) in executive session, arguing they should have been public discussions 1:49:06. Fletcher cited Town Counsel advice that executive session was necessary for negotiation strategy 1:49:43. Grishman disagreed with Counsel’s advice on this scope, recounted his long involvement with veterans, accused Fletcher of poor communication (citing a recent meeting with VFW Quartermaster Emerton held without his knowledge as liaison), and argued the town reneged on a promise made in October to keep the VFW post in place 1:50:04. He also questioned the parking plan for Recharts and noted the unaddressed issue of relocating the liquor license 1:51:49. Fletcher countered that the initial vote to keep the VFW was based on incomplete information, and the decision changed after further review, primarily due to concerns about the height/massing of a 4-story (plus elevation/mechanics) building on one lot 1:57:12. Duffy attempted to mediate, framing the core choice as between keeping the VFW (requiring one extra story of housing height) versus moving the VFW (allowing a shorter building), noting parking and flood zones were issues either way 1:59:42.
Further Public Comment: Christine Johnson, the direct abutter, expressed concern about a 4-5 story building blocking light 2:02:59. Susan Bishop questioned the necessity of 40+ units if it precludes leaving the VFW building 2:03:42. Phelan explained ~40 units were needed for developer financial feasibility 2:03:58. David Emerton highlighted the VFW’s upcoming 100th anniversary 2:05:59. Charlie Patios suggested the solution was to reissue the RFP with clear rules, arguing the original response deviated and was thus invalid 2:07:02. Marsha Dalton asked for confirmation that no decision would be made tonight; Fletcher confirmed 2:08:11.
Outcome: Extensive discussion occurred, revealing significant disagreement among Board members and strong opinions from the public/stakeholders. No vote was taken on the LDA or Ground Lease. The matter was effectively tabled for future consideration.

National Grid Petition: The petition for underground conduits at 11 Boynton Street was pulled from the consent agenda at Chair Fletcher’s request 2:09:57. Steven, representing National Grid, briefly described the request 2:10:24. Acting TA Cresta confirmed it relates to a new development, work is within paving limits already agreed upon by the developer, and he had no issues 2:10:47. Motion to approve by Duffy, seconded by Phelan 2:11:21. Vote: 5-0, approved 2:11:26.

Water & Sewer Infrastructure Advisory Committee (WSIAC) Update: 2:11:39 WSIAC Chair Elizabeth Smith provided a comprehensive update. Key points:

Committee meets twice monthly; meetings recorded and available online. Formed working groups (sewer, water, stormwater, technical, testing, financial, rules/regs).
Communication efforts ongoing via town website (e.g., Fisherman’s Beach sewer rehab update posted).
Reviewing/updating water, sewer, stormwater rules/regs. Identified need for a specific bylaw regarding sump pump connections to sewer mains (currently relying on state statute) 2:13:59. Anticipate potential warrant article(s) for Annual Town Meeting 2:25:07.
Evaluating sewer lateral contributions to pollution, upgrade strategies, and homeowner responsibilities. Discussed potential requirement for lateral inspection upon home sale [2:15:37, 2:25:47].
Investigating feasibility of a Stormwater Enterprise Fund 2:16:38.
Exploring GIS mapping capabilities for infrastructure management/communication 2:17:03.
Supporting lead pipe inventory process 2:17:31.
Working with DPW on FY26+ capital needs 2:17:43.
Summer testing identified issues at Fisherman’s Beach (Marshall St./Cassidy outfalls), leading to ongoing repairs (5 breaks fixed in Greenwood Ave/Rockland St area) 2:17:51. Work on Fisherman’s Beach rehab project (lining, etc.) expected to start mid-Dec/Jan, completion by July 2025 [2:13:39, 2:21:22].
King’s Beach testing complicated by suspected water main leaks affecting chlorine/bacteria readings; investigation ongoing 2:19:45. Phase II work design underway, bid expected Jan 2025 2:27:54.
Applied for $3.5M SRF loan; expect notification around Jan 2025 2:28:37.
Investigating UV pilot project (discussed next).
Board members acknowledged the committee’s extensive work 2:28:59.

Discussion: King’s Beach Proposed UV Disinfection System: 02:29:41 Chair Fletcher recapped a meeting with Lynn Mayor Nicholson, State Rep. Armini, and Sen. Creighton regarding a potential UV pilot project partnership. Initial cost estimate mentioned was $250k (total, not each) 0:29:58. WSIAC Chair Smith reported the committee lacks sufficient information for a recommendation 2:31:20. Kleinfelder is conducting a 6-week, $20k study (funded by Lynn) to assess feasibility of a summer 2025 pilot, as the current timeline points to late August start. Mayor Nicholson desires a summer pilot to allow beach opening (in dry weather). Many unknowns remain: terms for booking the $40k/month pilot truck, cancellation penalties, permitting (DCR land, flood zone, ConCom), noise, logistics (likely requiring in-house work by Lynn/Swampscott due to timeline). The proposed pilot location (triangle at Eastern/Humphrey/Lynn Shore Dr) is likely not viable long-term; finding a permanent site is a major unanswered question 2:37:08. Discussion clarified UV is mainly used for wastewater, not stormwater; Newport, RI has a stormwater system but results were mixed and system different 2:35:04. Fletcher reiterated concerns about siting a permanent facility in the dense neighborhood near 3 New Ocean Street 2:36:09. Grishman asked about extending the outfall; Fletcher stated it’s tabled for now but still an option considered by WSIAC, along with ozone treatment 2:37:41. Duffy confirmed funds were allocated to study all three options (UV, outfall, ozone) 2:38:25. Decision deferred pending more info from WSIAC/Kleinfelder study 2:39:20. Grishman stressed any pilot should occur during peak summer season 2:39:54.

Collective Bargaining Agreement (AFSCME Admin Professionals): Motion to approve the CBA by Grishman, seconded by Phelan 02:40:21. Vote: 5-0, approved 02:40:49.

ARPA Funds Update: 02:41:08

Coastal Resiliency: Duffy reported meeting with WSIAC and Climate Action chairs to refine the scope for ARPA-funded analysis, focusing on coastal vulnerability update, Fisherman’s Beach alternatives analysis (two levels), and rainfall-based flood modeling, totaling ~~$200k plus admin (~~$15k) 2:41:58. This aims to provide the rigorous analysis CZM seeks for future grant applications. Discussion included CZM feedback emphasizing need for project definition and analysis justifying chosen solutions over alternatives 2:47:18. Ryan Hale (Climate Action Committee) stressed ensuring open procurement and exploring partners/funding beyond CZM/Kleinfelder 2:52:07. Duffy confirmed intent for open procurement and broad grant seeking. The timeline requires moving quickly to issue procurement and award by 12/31/24 2:50:10. Town Accountant Amy O’Neil confirmed feasibility 2:50:21.
Direct Payments Proposal: Duffy proposed considering using ARPA funds (potentially repurposing some from Fisherman’s project, supplemented by SRF loan funds, plus any unused ARPA funds) for direct payments to lower-income households negatively impacted by pandemic/inflation 2:56:07. He suggested $750k total, potentially $750 per household to 1,000 households, based on criteria like AMI levels. Discussion followed on criteria definition, feasibility, and precedent. O’Neil noted other MA towns did this earlier in the ARPA timeline, requiring justification tied to pandemic impact 3:02:24. Fletcher expressed concern about the late timing 3:00:17. Phelan suggested first identifying unused funds and understanding the number of potentially eligible families 3:01:15. The matter was introduced for consideration, no action taken.

Special Town Meeting Warrant (December 9, 2024):

Motion to open warrant by Grishman, seconded by Phelan 3:05:01. Vote: 5-0, approved 3:05:17.
The Board reviewed draft articles with Assistant Town Accountant Patrick Luddy and Town Accountant O’Neil (online) 3:05:18:
- Art. 1 (Prior Year Bills): Discussed additions since draft. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 2 (CBA Funding): For AFSCME CBA just approved. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 3 (Homeless/Foster Care Transport): School funds pass-through. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 4 (Eminent Domain Settlement): Amount TBD. Discussion on funding source (free cash vs. bonding) pending FinCom review. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 5 (Free Cash for Tax Rate Adjustment): Amount TBD based on tax rate modeling and FinCom review. O’Neil reported >$1.5M available above policy threshold 3:14:12. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 6 (Capital Projects): Auditorium HVAC ($451k gross, $252k net after incentive, requires borrowing authorization for full amount) 3:18:35; Senior Center HVAC Design ($50k) - discussion on design vs. repair needed, CIC review pending 3:19:39. Sponsored by Select Board.
- Art. 7 & 8 (Bylaw - Alternate ZBA/Planning Members): State-required language. Sponsored by Select Board. Pushed for Special TM due to current need 3:22:30.
- Art. 9 (Bylaw - Demolition by Neglect): Proposed by Historical Commission liaison Duffy to protect historic properties (e.g., Glover) 3:23:04. Discussion revealed existing town authority might suffice; KP Law exploring differences/necessity. Recommended keeping on warrant for now, potentially indefinitely postpone later. Request made to vote on using existing authority at next SB meeting 3:25:22. Acknowledged potential downside for owners of designated historic properties 3:29:09. Sponsored by Select Board.
All articles sponsored by Select Board. Favorable action recommendations deferred pending FinCom/CIC review where applicable. Moderator to be consulted.
Motion to close warrant and authorize electronic signatures by Grishman, seconded by Phelan 3:29:50. Vote: 5-0, approved 3:31:04.

Consent Agenda: 3:31:04

National Grid petition previously removed and approved.
Approval of 11/6/24 Minutes deferred by Fletcher 3:31:36.
Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee Appointments: Motion to approve Ted Dooley, Scott McBurney, Amy Linger, Mike Gombale, and John Ingalls by Leonard 3:31:54. Discussion ensued regarding the controversy raised in public comment by HWAC Chair Schultz. Leonard defended her choices, acknowledging disagreement with Schultz but emphasizing need for change, fisherman representation (Gombale, Ingalls), and balance 3:32:36. Grishman expressed concern about liaison-chair relationship; Leonard committed to professionalism. Vote: 4-1 (Grishman opposed), approved 3:38:40.

Town Administrator’s Report: 3:39:42 Acting TA Cresta briefly highlighted the recent all-female police patrol shift, noting the report was available online.

Select Board Time: 3:40:49

Grishman applauded the all-female patrol shift as progress since leaving Civil Service and requested a future agenda item with Police/Fire Chiefs updating on hiring practices 3:40:52. Fletcher agreed.
Mr. Kelly (veteran) provided closing comments 3:41:47. He questioned the absence of the VSO during the veterans’ housing discussion, reiterated the VFW’s role as a social hub for veterans and the Swampscott/Lynn community, expressed concern about separating the housing from the post, questioned the definition of “veterans housing” vs. low-income with preference, queried the use of budgeted VSO funds, and urged the Board to consider the long-term impact of development decisions on the town’s character.

Adjournment: Motion to adjourn by Grishman, seconded by Leonard 3:47:51. Vote: 5-0, meeting adjourned.

Section 4: Executive Summary

The Swampscott Select Board meeting was dominated by a lengthy and contentious discussion regarding the proposed veterans’ preference affordable housing project at 10 New Ocean Street / 12-24 Pine Street, the current site of the VFW Post 1240. While no final decision was made on the project’s Land Disposition Agreement (LDA), the debate exposed deep divisions among Board members and significant concerns from veterans, neighbors, and other residents.

Pine Street / VFW Project Stalemate:

Core Conflict: The central issue revolves around how to proceed after the developer’s (B’nai B’rith) proposal did not meet VFW space expectations and deviated from the perceived intent of the 2023 Town Meeting vote, which authorized using both parcels for housing and a new VFW post 1:27:42. Current options are: 1) Build housing on both lots but relocate the VFW (potentially to Recharts), or 2) Keep the VFW post and build all 42 housing units on the adjacent Pine Street lot, requiring a taller building (likely 4 stories plus elevation/mechanics vs. 3) [1:35:53, 1:59:42].
Transparency & Process Criticized: Several public commenters [0:08:52, 0:12:28] and Select Board Member David Grishman 1:49:06 strongly criticized the Board, particularly Chair Mary Ellen Fletcher, for discussing project options and making key directional decisions in non-public executive sessions, alleging a lack of transparency and inadequate communication with stakeholders, especially the VFW. Chair Fletcher defended the use of executive session based on Town Counsel advice regarding negotiation strategy 1:49:43. An Open Meeting Law complaint was filed regarding the matter 0:08:52.
Veterans’ Housing Definition & Eligibility: Significant time was spent clarifying that the project offers affordable housing (55+) with a preference for veterans meeting income limits (primarily <=60% and <=30% of Area Median Income), not housing exclusively for veterans of any age or income [0:38:11, 0:42:22]. While efforts will be made to fill units with qualifying veterans first 0:55:34, the 55+ age limit excludes younger veterans in need 0:49:18.
Neighborhood & VFW Concerns: Neighbors and Planning Board Member Angela Ippolito raised concerns about the potential size, density, and flood-zone impacts of concentrating 42 units on the single Pine Street lot 1:24:19. VFW members expressed deep attachment to their current location and skepticism about relocation options like Recharts, citing feasibility, parking, and neighborhood character issues [1:53:04, 3:41:47]. The potential loss of the VFW’s current home and social hub before a new one is ready (years away per the project timeline 1:19:03) was a major concern 3:41:47.
Outcome: Faced with conflicting priorities (housing needs vs. VFW preservation/neighborhood impact, fidelity to Town Meeting vote vs. developer feasibility) and internal disagreement, the Board did not vote on the LDA, effectively pausing the project pending further deliberation.

Special Town Meeting Warrant Approved: The Board opened, reviewed, and closed the warrant for the December 9 Special Town Meeting [3:05:01, 3:29:50]. Key articles seek funding for prior year bills, collective bargaining agreements, state-mandated school transportation costs, a final eminent domain settlement (amount TBD), and potential use of free cash to mitigate tax rate increases (amount TBD). Capital appropriations include HVAC work for the High School Auditorium and potentially the Senior Center. Bylaw changes address alternate committee members and a new provision regarding demolition by neglect of historic properties.

Other Key Decisions & Discussions:

AFSCME Contract: A collective bargaining agreement with the Administrative Professionals union was approved 02:40:49.
ARPA Funds: The Board received an update on using ARPA funds for a ~$215k coastal resiliency analysis to inform future grant applications 2:41:58. A new proposal was introduced by Member Neal Duffy to allocate $750k in ARPA funds for direct payments to ~1,000 lower-income households impacted by inflation, sparking initial discussion but no decision 2:56:07.
Water & Sewer: The WSIAC provided updates on extensive ongoing work, including Fisherman’s Beach repairs, lead pipe inventory, King’s Beach water quality investigations, and potential bylaw updates for Annual Town Meeting 2:11:39. Discussion on the proposed King’s Beach UV treatment pilot revealed significant feasibility questions and unresolved issues regarding cost, timeline, and siting 02:29:41.
HWAC Appointments: Contentious Harbor & Waterfront Advisory Committee appointments were approved 4-1 despite objections from the committee’s chair voiced during public comment [3:31:47, 3:38:40].

Significance for Residents: The meeting highlighted major unresolved challenges in balancing development goals (especially affordable housing) with neighborhood preservation and commitments to community groups like the VFW. The outcome of the Pine Street project remains uncertain and highly contentious. Taxpayers should note the upcoming Special Town Meeting warrant articles, particularly those involving free cash appropriations and potential borrowing. Ongoing efforts to address water quality and coastal resiliency continue, though specific solutions like the UV pilot face hurdles. The debate over ARPA fund allocation underscores differing priorities for utilizing the remaining federal relief money.

Section 5: Analysis

This Select Board meeting was largely defined by the protracted and often tense debate over the Pine Street/VFW affordable housing project. The nearly two-hour discussion laid bare fundamental disagreements within the Board itself and between the Board and segments of the public, particularly concerning process, transparency, and competing priorities.

Process vs. Progress on Pine Street: The core tension appeared to be between the desire to advance a needed affordable housing project and adherence to process and prior understandings. Planning Board Member Ippolito’s detailed recounting of the original Town Meeting vote 1:27:42 and Member Grishman’s arguments regarding promises made to the VFW 1:50:04 framed the issue as one of fidelity to prior commitments. Conversely, Members Phelan and Leonard, along with AHT representative Epstein, emphasized the need for compromise and forward motion to achieve tangible housing results, acknowledging that the “perfect” outcome envisioned initially might be unattainable due to practical constraints (developer costs, space limitations) [1:40:23, 1:42:51]. The developer, B’nai B’rith, while not present, loomed large as their feasibility assessments drove the available options.

Transparency Under Fire: The recurring accusations of insufficient transparency, particularly leveled by resident Katie Arrington 0:08:52 and Member Grishman 1:49:06 against Chair Fletcher, were a significant dynamic. The dispute over whether discussions about project configuration (height, VFW location) were appropriately held in executive session highlights differing interpretations of the Open Meeting Law’s exemptions. Chair Fletcher cited Town Counsel’s advice 1:49:43, while Grishman vehemently disagreed 1:50:04. Regardless of the legal interpretation’s ultimate validity (pending the OML complaint review), the perception of secrecy clearly damaged trust, particularly with the VFW community, who felt decisions were reversed without their input after initial assurances [0:57:36, 1:50:04]. This dynamic likely contributed to the Board’s inability to reach a decision on the LDA.

Argument Effectiveness:

Arguments emphasizing fidelity to the original Town Meeting vote/RFP (Ippolito, Grishman, some public commenters) resonated strongly, particularly regarding the use of both lots and the provision of an adequate VFW space on-site. They effectively framed the one-lot/VFW relocation option as a departure from what voters approved.
Arguments focusing on practicality and the need for affordable housing (Epstein, Phelan, Leonard, Fletcher) effectively highlighted the urgency of the housing crisis and the constraints imposed by development costs and funding requirements [0:50:07, 1:42:51, 2:03:58]. However, they struggled to fully counter the narrative of broken promises.
Clarifications on veterans’ preference vs. veterans-exclusive housing (Epstein, James) were factually precise [0:38:11, 0:42:22] but didn’t fully alleviate the concerns of some veterans who felt the project wasn’t what they were initially led to expect [0:52:59, 0:57:36]. The 55+ age limit remains a sticking point for advocates of younger veterans 0:49:18.
Member Grishman’s arguments about lack of transparency and communication failures were pointed and appeared to resonate with the audience, though Chair Fletcher attempted to counter by referencing legal advice and informational gaps in prior votes [1:49:06, 1:57:12].
Member Duffy’s consistent calls for more public input before deciding on the LDA 0:44:27 positioned him as seeking process integrity, though it also contributed to the deferral of a decision.

Other Dynamics:

The ARPA direct payment proposal by Member Duffy 2:56:07, while addressing a valid purpose of ARPA, seemed strategically weak given its late introduction (weeks before the allocation deadline) and the lack of groundwork compared to the more developed resiliency proposal. Its prospects appear limited without strong, immediate backing from the rest of the Board and administration.
The HWAC appointments demonstrated Member Leonard’s ability to advance her preferred candidates despite vocal opposition from the committee’s own Chair [3:31:47 vs 0:03:52], indicating a significant disconnect between the liaison and the committee leadership that may require future management.
The WSIAC update showcased a committee deeply engaged in complex technical work 2:11:39, providing valuable data but also highlighting the long timelines and unresolved challenges (like UV pilot feasibility and siting) facing the town’s infrastructure goals.