See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Recognition Ceremonies (Link: 00:06:00 – 00:19:00)
The Select Board meeting for Wednesday, December 17 began with Chair Katie Phelan confirming readiness and noting that the meeting was being recorded. The board members were wearing festive holiday attire, which David Grishman explained was a tradition started in 2020 to honor their former colleague and friend Don Hoss, who loved the holiday season and spreading joy. This marked the sixth year of the tradition.
The first recognition was for retiring Fire Captain Joseph Kamalik, who was joined by his crew from the fire department. Fire Chief presented Captain Kamalik’s background, noting that he was raised in Swampscott, attended local schools, and was hired as a firefighter on January 3, 1997. Prior to his public safety career, Kamalik worked as a commercial fisherman in Swampscott, bringing extensive knowledge of local waters and unique skills including advanced knot-tying expertise that he shared with instructors at the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy.
The Chief described how Kamalik was promoted to lieutenant in August 2014 and became known for maintaining the most comprehensive and detailed reference binder containing information about local properties, streets, sprinkler systems, and building layouts. His binder became so valuable that other officers, including the Chief, regularly copied pages from it. Kamalik was promoted to captain in April 2018 and became highly respected for his knowledge and problem-solving abilities. He is retiring on January 1, 2026, after 29 years of service, though the Chief noted he would stay longer if allowed. Phelan presented Kamalik with an official citation of appreciation and a photograph of the local harbor. Captain Kamalik briefly thanked his colleagues, expressing that it had been an honor and privilege to work with them for 30 years.
The second recognition was for Girl Scout Troop 72182 members Amelia Crehan, Audrey Hale, and Taya O’Donoghue, who completed their Silver Award project called “Nature for All.” The girls explained that their project involved creating a nature box located on the kiosk at the entrance to Ewing Woods behind the elementary school. The box contains informational cards, bingo sheets, track identification materials, and plants that visitors can take home. They also planted native gardens in front of the new elementary school, created educational signs about monarch butterflies, painted ladies, and eastern black swallowtails, and included QR codes linking to iNaturalist for species identification.
The project ran from July through late September, with the girls maintaining the nature box by adding new plants monthly and seed packets during winter months. When asked about their next steps, the girls indicated they plan to pursue Gold Awards, which require individual rather than group projects and significantly more hours of work. Phelan presented citations of appreciation to all three girls and thanked them for their contributions to the community’s environmental education efforts. A committee member also recognized their troop leader Suzanne Hale for her guidance.
Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:19:00 – 00:32:00)
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners began his report by acknowledging the festive opening and noting that board members did not have written materials, explaining that going forward, binders would be ready at Town Hall the Thursday before meetings. He provided updates on several key areas.
Regarding police department hiring, Conners reported that between 18 and 22 applications have been received and are being reviewed by the chief and leadership team. The goal is to move 8 to 10 candidates forward to background checks and interviews in January. Two new hires, Nate Espinal and Sam Holy, are scheduled to attend police academies, with Espinal joining the January academy in Linfield and Holy joining the February academy in Randolph after being waitlisted for the January session. Both officers will require 9 to 12 months to complete academy training and field training before being fully operational.
For the fire department, Conners reported that Chief Archer is working on purchasing a new ladder truck from Pierce. An opportunity exists to buy an “as built” truck, avoiding the typical 18 to 36 month wait time. There is a small cost difference of approximately $15,000 to $20,000 between the appropriation and the truck cost. Conners and Finance Director Patrick are reviewing outstanding purchase orders to cover this difference, with the possibility of requesting Finance Committee reserve funds if needed. This option is both the cheapest and quickest way to acquire the truck since it does not require customization.
Conners provided updates on open Town Hall positions, reporting good discussions with finance director candidates and expressing cautious optimism about providing a fuller update in early January. The assessor position will be reposted with a higher salary, and a promising interview is scheduled for the Town Clerk position. He announced that Dianne Marchese will be moving to the Public Safety Administration position, requiring the posting of a new administrative position at Town Hall.
Regarding the Hawthorne property, Conners encouraged community members to use the parking lot, noting that parking is available within lined spots to help activate the space and expand parking availability. More than a dozen parties have requested and downloaded the RFP, though some requests came from community members and others with unclear intentions. Site visits are being conducted this week by appointment, with Marzi and Max facilitating tours for interested groups who are asking good questions and examining the interior to prepare better proposals.
Conners thanked Heidi for dementia-friendly training he recently completed with senior work-off volunteers. The training is available to elected and appointed officials, with a goal of having 80 percent of town employees complete it. The training helps staff identify and support individuals who may be experiencing dementia symptoms when seeking assistance at Town Hall. Heidi conducts regular sessions at the senior center, and the town participates in the related Forget Me Not program, which involves local businesses creating accommodating environments for people with dementia.
David Grishman asked when the Select Board could visit the Hawthorne property, and Conners replied that he had just received a key and could arrange individual or group visits as long as there was no deliberation during group visits. Grishman also asked about the fire truck opportunity, and Conners explained that Chief Archer had been working with a salesperson and aggressively pursuing available as-built trucks, with the department reviewing specifications to ensure the truck met their needs.
Phelan asked about procurement procedures for the fire truck, and Conners clarified that they already had capital appropriation and this opportunity would short-circuit the typical ordering and waiting process. When asked which truck would be replaced, Conners did not have that information. A committee member asked about notifying residents of Hawthorne parking availability, and Conners confirmed they would use newsletters, emails, and signage, noting that the police department was enthusiastic about activating the space.
The committee member also asked about materials provided during site visits, and Conners explained that only the posted RFP and addendums are provided. During tours, if questions arise, visitors are asked to submit them in writing so answers can be posted publicly to ensure all potential respondents have equal access to information. Questions are due before Christmas with answers due around New Year’s. A committee member suggested reaching out to brewing and restaurant associations, which Conners said they had not done but could contact the Mass Brewers Guild and Mass Restaurant Association.
A committee member asked about using excess capital funds from DPW equipment for the fire truck, but Conners explained that the authorization was specifically for the ladder truck amount. They are working with existing purchase orders and may need to request Finance Committee reserve funds for future unforeseen expenses if necessary. Phelan then transitioned to public comment, explaining the new streamlined format allowing three-minute comments on any agenda item except public hearings.
Public Comment (Link: 00:32:00 – 00:32:00)
Chair Katie Phelan called for public comment, noting that residents could comment for three minutes on any agenda item except public hearings, or on any off-agenda topics. Seeing no one approach the microphone for public comment, Phelan moved the meeting forward to new and old business. The first item was announced as a public hearing to consider approval of an application for multiple amendments to an existing Section 15 off-premises wine and malt beverage license, seeking to change it to an off-premises all alcohol license for 44 Atlantic Inc., doing business as Richdale Swampscott, located at 444 Humphrey Street. The application also included changes to the manager, officer, director, and shareholder. Phelan greeted the applicant who was present for the hearing.
Richdale Liquor License Public Hearing (Link: 00:32:00 – 01:07:00)
Chair Katie Phelan called for a motion to enter the public hearing, which was moved and seconded. The applicant provided a color-coded map showing where alcoholic beverages would be stored, separate from the existing beer and wine areas. The applicant indicated they had completed their presentation at the previous meeting and were open to questions and public comments.
Joan Kruzek of 432 Humphrey Street spoke in support of the application, addressing concerns raised in a letter at the previous meeting about teenagers drinking and leaving cans. She stated she knows the applicant Vinny, his wife, and his college-age son, and believes he would never sell to underage residents. Kruzek described her daily beach walks from April through November, during which she picks up trash including grabbers and stainless steel tools. She reported that the items she finds are not beer bottles but rather nip bottles and grape liqueur packages, as well as needles and hundreds of cigarette butts daily. She argued that the store does not currently sell the types of alcohol she finds on the beach and questioned what the liquor license application has to do with keeping the community safe and clean.
Danielle Leonard expressed concerns as a parent and resident about underage drinking in town, describing it as an epidemic in small towns. She noted that the convenience store is frequented by children buying candy, ice cream, and snacks, and expressed discomfort with increased alcohol exposure in such a location. Leonard acknowledged the town has three full-size liquor stores in three square miles and questioned whether more alcohol availability was needed. She emphasized that her concern was not about preventing the business owners from operating but about the broader community impact of alcohol exposure for children in a convenience store setting.
The applicant’s representative responded that if they do not receive the all-alcohol license, it would be available to someone else at a different location, potentially as a full liquor store. He noted that the applicant would retain their existing beer and wine license regardless. Leonard clarified that her concern was specifically about children frequenting a convenience store versus a dedicated liquor store, where children would not typically go to buy ice cream.
Phelan raised two points: first, questioning the legal framework for denying a license based on discomfort, noting uncertainty about the board’s legal authority to deny without specific grounds; and second, sharing a positive experience at Richdale where children are limited to two at a time in the store, which she viewed as responsible management. She observed that the store layout shows alcohol in the back, away from items children would typically purchase, and noted that small bottles would likely be kept behind the counter.
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners confirmed there was nothing in the packet outlining the legal framework for denial and offered to work with town counsel to provide that information in writing before the next meeting. A committee member requested to see those legal parameters due to concerns raised. David Grishman stated he was ready to approve the application, noting the store’s small size and that children can already access beer and wine there. He viewed the addition of some liquor behind the cash register and at the end of a cooler as a reasonable balance for a well-operated business.
Bill Demento of 1008 Paradise Road called in to clarify that the board has the right to deny the license, stating that the standard is whether it is in the public good to have the license. He noted that the board has discretionary authority unless they would deny it for discriminatory reasons. The applicant’s attorney confirmed this authority but explained that the board must balance factors enumerated in statute and the Ballerin case, including traffic, parking, noise, and public safety issues. He argued that the application would have minimal impact on these factors and noted the store has 16 cameras for monitoring.
Grishman expressed support for the application, citing the store’s good management, neighbor support, and the applicant’s nine years of responsible operation with a beer and wine license. A committee member noted that licenses must be renewed annually, providing ongoing oversight opportunities. Mary Ellen Fletcher expressed concerns about the difficulty of non-renewal versus initial denial and her discomfort with children frequenting a convenience store with extensive liquor displays.
Leonard clarified that her concern was not about children purchasing alcohol but about the atmosphere created when adults buying alcohol interact with children buying snacks in the same space. She questioned whether continued expansion of alcohol availability was appropriate, noting recent approval of another liquor store half a mile away. Leonard distinguished between a convenience store with beer and wine versus what she characterized as a “mini liquor store” selling all types of alcohol.
Phelan suggested that as a parent, she could choose not to send her child to a store she deemed inappropriate rather than penalize the business. Fletcher questioned whether the public good was served by restricting children’s access to a convenience store. Grishman noted that the store currently sells beer and wine, and the addition would allow sale of items like High Noon seltzers, which require an all-alcohol license despite having similar alcohol content to beer.
Thompson acknowledged the board’s right to decline the application but expressed concern about asking the applicant to return for a third time. Conners clarified that while the board has the right to deny, they need a proper framework to survive any appeal, requiring thoughtful consideration of factors important to the board. Phelan emphasized the importance of understanding the legal framework not just for this application but for future licensing decisions, including whether the board could determine an area has sufficient license density.
The discussion revealed that ownership structure was changing, with one shareholder buying out another, and management was changing, with Vinny becoming the new manager. Grishman motioned to approve the amendments for change of manager, officers, directors, and stock interest while holding off on the all-alcohol license expansion until more legal information was available. The motion was seconded and approved.
After initially moving to close the public hearing, the board realized they needed to continue it to avoid re-noticing requirements. They reversed the closure motion and instead continued the public hearing until the January 7th Select Board meeting. The applicant’s attorney referenced the Ballerin case involving Charles Street in Boston, where denial of a full alcohol license was deemed unreasonable when five nearby restaurants had full alcohol licenses, emphasizing that the test is reasonableness under circumstances rather than need.
Annual License Renewals (Link: 01:07:00 – 01:23:00)
Chair Katie Phelan emphasized the importance of understanding the definition of reasonableness when evaluating license applications and requested that town counsel provide a memo outlining the parameters of reasonableness that would be stronger for appeal purposes. The board then moved to discuss and vote on annual liquor license, common victualer license, entertainment license, and Class 2 license renewals.
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners provided a brief introduction, noting that staff had worked throughout the day to address outstanding issues. He explained that the printed documents were current as of the previous Thursday, and that red-highlighted items indicating required actions such as missing checks or inspections had been significantly reduced since printing. The number of businesses requiring additional action or information had narrowed considerably.
David Grishman asked about G Bar & Kitchen and Little G, noting they have one liquor license but separate common victualer and entertainment licenses. A staff member explained that the liquor license was issued as one license because the buildings are adjacent, as permitted by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission. However, due to building department occupancy requirements and the need for additional firewalls between establishments, separate occupancy maximums were created for each building, requiring two separate common victualer licenses.
Regarding entertainment licenses, staff initially indicated G and Little G would have one entertainment license similar to the liquor license arrangement. However, Phelan noted the documentation showed they required two entertainment licenses despite needing only one liquor license. She observed that the venues have different atmospheres, with Little G having TVs, trivia, and bands, while G does not, making them distinct operations. The board confirmed that while the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission controls liquor licenses, the town controls common victualer and entertainment licenses.
For liquor license renewals, staff identified outstanding issues with Mexicali Cantina and Paradiso Restaurant. Mexicali had received a letter on December 11 delivered in person, which was reportedly the second notice. Outstanding issues included submitting current test reports for fire alarm, sprinkler system, emergency lights and exit signage; having fire extinguishers and kitchen Ansul system serviced and tagged by a licensed testing company; installing required push bar hardware on the rear exit door; repairing the door closer; removing an unapproved lock; maintaining clear paths to all exits as obstructions were blocking safe access to rear egress; and removing storage piled in front of electrical service that was preventing the required 30-inch service area. Staff reported no response despite multiple phone calls to the manager.
Paradiso Restaurant only needed to submit test reports for the fire alarm and sprinkler system, with no reinspection required. Staff indicated this would likely be completed the following day, allowing for conditional approval subject to receiving the documentation.
Phelan read a comprehensive motion to approve 2026 liquor licenses, dividing them into full approval for establishments that met all requirements and conditional approval for Mexicali Cantina and Paradiso Restaurant. The conditional approvals were contingent upon resolving all outstanding matters by December 29, 2025, with automatic suspension or denial if the deadline was not met. The motion was approved.
For common victualer licenses, the same issues applied to Mexicali and Paradiso, with additional outstanding items for Flip the Bird and Whole Foods, both of which had submitted applications but had not yet paid their fees. Phelan read another comprehensive motion covering full approvals for compliant establishments and conditional approvals for the four establishments with outstanding issues, using the same December 29 deadline. The motion was approved.
For entertainment licenses, the same four establishments had outstanding issues. Phelan noted that Little G should be included separately from G Bar & Kitchen since they require two entertainment licenses. She read the motion for entertainment license renewals, including both G Bar & Kitchen and Little G in the full approval section, with conditional approvals for the four establishments with outstanding compliance items. The motion was approved.
Grishman commented that he found it ridiculous to charge for televisions in entertainment licenses, but Phelan suggested discussing that topic at a future meeting rather than during license renewals. Mary Ellen Fletcher requested a broader discussion about equity in fees, noting that large establishments pay similar fees to much smaller establishments. Phelan asked Conners to research how neighboring communities handle common victualer and entertainment license fees to ensure the town’s approach is comparable.
ARPA Funds Update and Discussion (Link: 01:24:00 – 01:45:00)
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners provided an update on ARPA funds following the previous meeting’s discussion about potentially participating in additional work with Kleinfelder and the City of Lynn. He presented two slides showing the breakdown of local fiscal recovery funds, which were completely under the Select Board’s control and must be expended by the end of the calendar year. The funds had been allocated to various projects through previous board decisions, with the last vote occurring on December 30, 2024, to ensure everything was obligated and could move forward for expenditure.
Conners reported that approximately 95 percent of the local fiscal recovery funds had been spent, with Finance Director Patrick confident that all funds would be expended. Mary Ellen Fletcher requested a breakdown of the remaining 5 percent and asked about the deadline for moving funds between categories if they might not be spent. Conners initially stated they had missed the deadline for moving funds, but Douglas Thompson clarified that their understanding was that funds could be moved between already established categories for relatively small amounts, though new categories could not be created.
The second slide showed the $2.5 million earmark that came through the state for Kings Beach improvement or water quality improvement, which provided more flexibility. This funding included the peer review funds, the $300,000 UV pilot cost, and phases 2 and 2A of infrastructure work. Conners highlighted that if the board wanted to participate in phase 1A that Kleinfelder had suggested, it would cost approximately $75,000 to $77,000.
Thompson asked what funds were not yet committed, and Conners explained that the peer review money remained available, while phase 2 IDDE design was 99 percent complete and ready for bidding. The $1.5 million for phase 2A construction had a capital appropriation that existed, providing flexibility to use either ARPA funds or taxpayer dollars. A committee member noted that using the $1.5 million from ARPA would provide relief to taxpayers.
The discussion revealed that Kleinfelder had indicated they might be able to complete all necessary work under phase 2A without requiring a phase 2B, potentially avoiding additional costs beyond the $1.5 million allocation. Thompson referenced a previous “complementary strategies report” that had been paid for entirely by Swampscott, though they later negotiated to pay only $300,000 for the UV pilot work with Lynn.
Thompson expressed strong opposition to not spending the $1.5 million for pipe work, categorizing it as committed funding. Conners suggested there was opportunity to take some costs and assign them to capital appropriations instead of ARPA funds. Phelan clarified that the discussion involved potentially using $77,000 from capital appropriations to cover the next phase of UV pilot work, which would provide data useful for both the pilot and other mechanisms to understand flow and potential costs.
The board discussed whether to proceed with a peer review of their water quality work. Phelan explained her rationale for the peer review, noting that when working with the same consultants for extended periods, everyone becomes comfortable and potential blind spots may develop. She suggested a fresh perspective might identify different approaches or push harder in areas currently being ruled out. David Grishman acknowledged lacking technical expertise to make that judgment but expressed ambivalence about the peer review’s value.
Fletcher questioned whether they should proceed with the peer review, noting the significant financial commitments being made including raising water and sewer rates and allocating ARPA funds. She viewed it as a financially responsible safeguard. A committee member supported having another set of eyes review their overall strategy, particularly given previous failures in IDDE work, though recent results had been more positive.
Grishman asked whether the proposed $77,000 phase 1A work would be useful for both UV and outfall solutions. Conners explained that the work would include continued conversations with regulators, sediment testing, flow testing, and targeted wet weather testing, all of which would inform multiple potential solutions. He noted that without sediment testing and flow understanding, they would be less likely to identify issues in a useful timeframe, and the work could inform various solutions including UV, outfall, or other approaches.
Grishman asked about credits that Kleinfelder representative Courtney had mentioned for services paid but not received. Conners indicated he would need to verify this, as his understanding was that any credit was already built into current billing. Thompson expressed continued ambivalence about the peer review, noting that while it sounded conceptually good, Kleinfelder had deep knowledge of their system, and $100,000 might not provide a thorough second opinion without seeing an actual scope of work.
Conners clarified that the proposed phase 1A scope had been narrowed to focus on sediment testing, wet weather flow testing, and contact with regulators for feedback, removing elements like permanent siting discussions and design work that the board had indicated they did not want. Thompson asked about the purpose of regulator contact, and Conners explained they needed fuller feedback from DEP and EPA beyond the previous response to continue conversations. Phelan referenced a public commenter who had read an EPA email with serious concerns, noting they needed to understand the context of that communication.
Wastewater Treatment Discussion (Link: 01:45:00 – 02:04:00)
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners clarified that while Kleinfelder would be a necessary part of conversations with regulators, they would not be the sole conduit for getting responses. Danielle Leonard expressed hesitation about continuing to give Kleinfelder more money for information that board members cannot independently verify, questioning whether there should be another player in the process to provide feedback on Kleinfelder’s work. She emphasized concerns about relying solely on Kleinfelder’s guidance without any other reference point.
Conners cautioned against conflating the current request with Kleinfelder’s extensive work in town, noting that other firms could potentially perform similar work. He suggested that Leonard’s concerns should not solely prevent moving forward with work that could provide useful information in multiple ways, and noted that the $77,000 could theoretically be done by someone else with a different perspective. Leonard questioned whether Kleinfelder should have to explain their previous work without additional payment, given the substantial amounts already paid for their services.
Chair Katie Phelan acknowledged that having Kleinfelder present for regulator conversations would be most efficient and effective, though it would require payment for their participation. She distinguished between two separate issues: the $100,000 for peer review and the $77,000 for phase 1A work. Regarding peer review, Phelan noted they were in a different situation than a year ago when they had multiple hotspots and issues that Kleinfelder seemed unable to locate. She explained that while peer review might still be responsible, they were no longer in that problematic situation, having identified and addressed real issue points that created effective change in hotspots.
Phelan expressed openness to understanding a scope of work for peer review and how it might apply to the current situation versus the previous year’s circumstances. She noted that the information they could have obtained a year ago might not be the same information needed now to evaluate whether Kleinfelder is the right consultant or if they are missing anything important. She requested understanding both a peer review scope and whether $100,000 could achieve their goals, or if it should be spent elsewhere.
Regarding the $77,000 for phase 1A UV pilot work, Phelan supported removing anything related to permanent UV pilot installation, as she did not believe they were ready for that step. She emphasized the value of flow data, which would help them understand how much flow belongs to Swampscott versus Lynn and evaluate the success of their IDDE work. This data would enable more informed negotiations with Lynn about cost-sharing based on actual flow percentages.
Leonard continued expressing skepticism about data reliability, questioning how they could be confident in data provided by Kleinfelder and whether it represents actual conditions or what Kleinfelder wants it to show. She referenced challenges mentioned in Kleinfelder’s UV presentation, including unanticipated issues like seaweed, which reduced her confidence in their work. Thompson suggested they could put the work out to bid, allowing Kleinfelder and other firms to compete.
Grishman questioned the need for regulator communications, stating he was not interested in their feedback about UV systems since he did not see the board investing millions in a UV facility within the next ten years. Mary Ellen Fletcher agreed, asking if anyone at the table could envision such an investment. When the consensus was negative, Fletcher questioned why they would spend any additional money on UV-related work, advocating instead for focusing all resources on pipe infrastructure and IDDE work.
Fletcher noted that they had previously agreed they could not fathom investing millions in a UV treatment facility, questioning why they were continuing down that path. Conners suggested that any such facility would likely be a regional solution requiring state participation, as he could not envision the two communities funding it alone. He emphasized that without flow data, they could not determine appropriate sizing for any potential solution.
Thompson agreed with focusing on data collection but objected to the regulator communication component, preferring to focus solely on determining whether pipe infrastructure could be a complete solution. He emphasized wanting definitive data about pipe effectiveness, including downstream post-treatment settlement issues. The board reached consensus on supporting flow testing, sediment testing, and wet weather testing while removing regulator communications from the scope.
Phelan suggested that Conners return with a breakdown of how much of the $77,000 was attributed to regulator conversations and what that component would achieve. Thompson clarified that his objection was not about cost but about maintaining focus on their primary objectives. Conners asked for clear direction, suggesting the board authorize data collection work while excluding regulator communications, which would allow him to negotiate a reduced scope.
Grishman still questioned the value of regulator feedback on UV systems, arguing that if they had already removed UV from consideration, regulator input was unnecessary. However, he suggested that regulator feedback could help inform the City of Lynn’s decisions and potentially remove UV from their table as well. The discussion revealed ongoing disagreement about the value of regulator engagement.
Leonard questioned what additional information regulators could provide beyond what they had already communicated about consent decree requirements. She argued that regulators had already told them what needed to be done, questioning the value of further conversations. Phelan noted that just because Swampscott did not want to pay for regulator conversations did not mean those conversations would not occur, suggesting Lynn might cover that portion.
The board discussed their changed perspective due to recent IDDE work success, feeling they were on the right path and approaching completion. Conners noted that Kleinfelder had indicated that at the end of phase 2A, there might still be high-level areas requiring attention, but the board felt they had sufficient funding through ARPA funds, capital appropriations, and SRF loans to continue addressing hotspots.
Conners confirmed he would pursue a “further skinny” scope focusing only on flow testing and sediment testing, excluding regulator communications. Regarding peer review, Phelan requested a proposed scope of work for the $100,000 allocation and what it would examine. Leonard asked for a simplified explanation of what peer review means in this context, and Fletcher clarified it would involve having another consultant evaluate whether they are on the right path or should take a different approach.
The discussion clarified that peer review would focus only on Swampscott’s IDDE work affecting Stacy Brook, not UV systems, to comply with the ARPA fund allocation requirements. Conners confirmed they would ensure any scope represents and connects to the original allocations, noting they had consulted with financial advisors to ensure compliance. The board also noted that ARPA funds must be spent by the end of the following year, making the 1.5 million allocation a priority for that funding source rather than capital funds.
Budget Planning and Financial Guidance (Link: 02:04:00 – 02:34:00)
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners requested guidance from the Select Board as they begin the budget process with staff for the new year. He asked for direction on priorities, service levels, and strategic goals, noting they would be cognizant of limiting or not creating new positions. Conners mentioned exploring regional opportunities and having ongoing conversations with other administrators about creative solutions, though he acknowledged these would not balance the budget alone.
Conners explained they were already in the red and asked for guidance on whether the board preferred level service versus level funding, and what services or parts of town government were most important to prioritize. He requested direction on where to make difficult decisions and how to explain their conclusions to the board.
Douglas Thompson suggested using the goals they had previously established as the core framework and noted it would be difficult to stay away from level service, though he was open to creative thinking. Thompson proposed focusing on unused or underused town property that could be sold to raise significant revenue, acknowledging it was a one-time solution but potentially useful given their current financial situation.
Conners expressed his personal opposition to balancing the budget with one-time revenue, stating it was against financial best practices that most people would not favor. Thompson argued that disposing of unused property while incurring maintenance and utility costs could be viewed as good stewardship, creating funds that would drop to free cash and provide future benefits.
Danielle Leonard supported the property discussion as a common theme from their goals process, advocating for an inventory of underutilized properties including Clark School and Earl Street properties. She acknowledged that selling assets to satisfy one year of budgetary issues was not good financial practice but emphasized the need to understand their property portfolio.
Conners distinguished between the property inventory as a goal versus using property sales for budget balancing, agreeing they needed to identify surplus property as the board had prioritized, but maintaining it should not be part of budget guidance.
David Grishman noted that proceeds from property sales might not fall to free cash but rather to future land acquisitions, requiring clarification. He mentioned that a similar exercise had been conducted three to five years ago, resulting in Pine Street development, and suggested much of that information already existed. Grishman also proposed exploring RFPs for legal services and insurance to potentially provide budget relief.
Conners confirmed they were locked into the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) with one year notice required for withdrawal, and noted they had started conversations with consultants about self-insurance options. He explained that leaving GIC was not a silver bullet as they would need a trust to carry expenses. Conners confirmed they had recently changed property insurance vendors and offered to explore legal services if directed.
Mary Ellen Fletcher emphasized the importance of understanding the calendar for the upcoming trash contract renewal and having the Solid Waste Advisory Committee provide decision points rather than just general conversation. Conners confirmed he and the DPW Director had met with Republic Services to understand renewal options.
Chair Katie Phelan raised concerns about the Board of Health and Health Department staffing, noting they had not resolved discussions from the previous year about organizational structure and staffing needs. Conners confirmed he had spoken with the Board of Health chair about their goals and suggested a public discussion between the boards.
Leonard emphasized opportunities for regionalization, mentioning IT collaboratives run by other towns. Conners discussed exploring IT services with the DPW Director and engaging the Executive Office of Telecommunications for a free audit similar to financial management reviews.
Phelan stated her preference for starting with level service costs to understand taxpayer impact, noting they were already above financial policies. She preferred understanding the cost of maintaining services rather than starting with draconian cuts. Fletcher requested seeing scenarios both with and without using unused levy capacity, asking what would happen if they stayed at the 2.5 percent limit rather than their 2 percent policy.
The discussion clarified that level service would likely require going above their policy but potentially staying within legal limits. Leonard emphasized the need to resolve Health Department organizational questions and determine appropriate FTE levels for that department.
Thompson noted they had examined the budget in excruciating detail the previous year and expressed skepticism about finding significant savings through small adjustments. He suggested that finding substantial budget relief would require looking at major areas rather than minor line items.
Fletcher reminded the board that the previous year included a major $440,000 mistake and approximately $1 million in unplanned spending, making it an exceptionally difficult year with poor information provided. She emphasized the need to examine philosophical approaches to staffing, referencing changes made to assessor and facilities positions.
Thompson supported exploring legal services through RFP, noting both potential cost savings and concerns about the current firm’s performance and transparency in legal expenditures. Phelan suggested better control of legal costs through creating a library of previous legal memos to avoid duplicate charges and clarifying what work should be included in retainer versus hourly billing.
Conners explained that non-adversarial work should be within the retainer, but noted the current firm had aggressively raised prices. He outlined a potential RFP process involving qualification and cost proposals, with panel interviews and separate proposals for labor and general legal work. He confirmed he had implemented controls requiring department heads to check with him before contacting legal counsel.
Fletcher noted that retainer usage still accumulates hours that can lead to increased retainer costs at year-end. The discussion revealed that duplicate legal opinions had been provided recently, highlighting the need for better tracking systems.
Conners offered to develop a presentation outlining the legal RFP process and to contact potential firms to ensure capacity before proceeding. Phelan requested an end-of-year summary from the current legal firm showing where money was spent by subject matter.
Leonard mentioned that Danvers had successfully exited GIC and moved to Blue Cross, suggesting they could consult with Danvers’ assistant town administrator for guidance without paying consultants. She also noted Danvers runs an IT collaborative serving multiple towns that had provided helpful assistance to Swampscott previously.
Consent Agenda and Administrative Items (Link: 02:34:00 – 03:00:00)
Town Administrator Nicholas Conners addressed the consent agenda, beginning with a Housing Authority appointment issue. He explained that a question had arisen about whether Ken needed a special municipal employee designation to be appointed chairman, since he does legal work before town boards. After consulting with town counsel, Conners learned that special municipal employee designations are made by position, not individual, meaning all members of a board would need to be designated as special municipal employees. He requested setting this aside until the first meeting in January to allow for proper consideration of designating Housing Authority, Planning Board, and other board members as special municipal employees.
The board discussed appointing Kelly Russo, president of the tenants association, who had been attending Housing Authority meetings regularly but without voting rights. David Grishman asked how long the Housing Authority had been operating with vacancies, and Conners indicated it had been several months. Mary Ellen Fletcher questioned whether they could approve Russo’s appointment without Ken’s appointment requiring a joint meeting, and Conners confirmed this should be possible since the Housing Authority had already voted twice publicly to recommend both appointments.
Chair Katie Phelan noted an issue with the tentative Select Board meeting calendar, specifically regarding February meetings during school vacation week. The board discussed whether to meet February 4th and 25th, skipping the 18th due to vacation, or meeting February 11th and 25th. After considering individual schedules, they settled on meeting February 4th and 25th to avoid the vacation week while maintaining two meetings that month.
Phelan announced a tri-chair meeting scheduled for January 8th, the day after their next Select Board meeting, with hopes of setting a date for the next financial summit. She had invited School Committee Vice Chair Glenn Pastor to participate, noting that if the School Committee appointed an interim chair, Glenn would pass the invitation along.
Danielle Leonard expressed concern about the timing of financial summit meetings, noting they were in budget season and the longer these meetings took to organize, the more problematic it became. She emphasized the urgency given budget deadlines. Thompson agreed, questioning why they needed a tri-chair meeting to simply email people about scheduling the next summit focused on school budget education.
The discussion revealed frustration with the coordination process, with board members suggesting they could simply schedule a meeting directly with the School Committee and Finance Committee rather than waiting for tri-chair coordination. Leonard noted that by the time they met in late January, the school budget process would be well advanced, potentially making their input less meaningful.
After extensive discussion about timing, the board decided to offer January 21st as the date for the next mini-summit, using their regularly scheduled Select Board meeting date for this purpose. They would move other Select Board business to either January 7th or February 4th to accommodate the joint meeting with School Committee and Finance Committee.
The board outlined the agenda for the school budget summit, focusing on education about how the School Committee builds their budget, clarification of existing Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and different interpretations of those agreements, and discussion of financial constraints. Phelan emphasized wanting to understand all existing MOUs to avoid surprises during budget discussions.
Thompson raised questions about the formal mechanism by which the School Committee understands the town’s financial position and how that gets communicated during budget formulation. Conners explained that practices vary by community, with some town administrators setting baseline budgets for both school and municipal operations, though he needed to better understand Swampscott’s historical approach.
Fletcher noted that historically, the town administrator would give the superintendent a budget number to work within, and previous superintendents had successfully operated within those constraints. Conners cautioned that special education costs had become a more significant budget driver, though Fletcher noted they had reserves and circuit breaker funding to address those pressures.
The discussion highlighted the need for clearer communication about financial constraints earlier in the budget process to avoid the pattern of having three different budget proposals from the School Committee, Town Administrator, and Finance Committee. Leonard referenced Lynnfield’s recent 4.9 percent school budget increase request as an example of other communities being further along in their budget processes.
Conners recalled that the previous year, the superintendent had indicated that even with everything requested, future increases would likely exceed 2.5 percent annually, suggesting ongoing structural budget challenges. The board emphasized the need for early, clear communication about financial boundaries to avoid last-minute budget conflicts.
After resolving the summit scheduling, Phelan moved the consent agenda as amended, removing Ken’s Housing Authority appointment until January while approving other items including Kelly Russo’s appointment and the revised meeting calendar. The motion was seconded and approved. Phelan noted that their planned discussion of financial boundaries and guardrails felt too late for February given budget timing pressures.
Select Board Member Updates and Holiday Remarks (Link: 03:00:00 – 03:10:00)
Chair Katie Phelan opened the Select Board member updates portion of the meeting, noting some playful banter about projecting and holiday sweaters. Douglas Thompson expressed doubt that a third financial summit would be necessary, acknowledging that even with clear guidance provided on January 7th, budget pressures and decisions would still need to be made, and collective discussions might still be required but did not need to be scheduled immediately.
David Grishman welcomed Sam Walker’s American Tavern, a new 400-seat, 10,000 square foot restaurant that opened in Vinin Square, describing it as the beating heart of the area with great drinks and food. He encouraged community members to visit during the holiday season and beyond, noting he was impressed during his visit the previous night. Grishman also congratulated Laura Spathanus, a former Select Board member who had served as president of Anchor Food Pantry since its establishment in March 2020 during the pandemic. He noted that while she would no longer serve as president, she would remain on the board, and he commended her and all volunteers for their efforts.
Grishman highlighted two local children, River and Riley Winand, who had raised money for Anchor Food Pantry by shoveling sidewalks and driveways, stating they embodied the meaning of the holidays and holiday spirit. He expressed that the community was better for having these individuals and others who had worked tirelessly for charitable causes.
Danielle Leonard agreed about Sam Walker’s Tavern, noting that board members had attended the previous night and found it fantastic and a welcome addition to Swampscott. She praised Big Blue Bargains for their “10 or 12 days of giving” campaign, which included bringing cookies to town hall and the post office, providing lunch for the DPW, and spreading cheer throughout town. Leonard described attending a Christmas puzzling event where she was unable to complete her 500-piece puzzle despite having strong teammates and wearing her glasses.
Leonard noted the exceptional number of holiday programs at Clark School and throughout town, stating she had never seen Swampscott so festive, mentioning the lobster trap Christmas tree and Santa Con events along Humphrey Street. She expressed happiness about wearing her holiday sweater at Grishman’s suggestion in memory of Don Howes and emphasized that Big Blue Bargains had done extraordinary work during the holiday season.
Thompson provided non-holiday updates, noting that as part of being awarded climate leader status, the town had applied for a $150,000 research study grant for a comprehensive assessment of opportunities at the high school. The assessment would cover everything from replacing heating systems to parking lot improvements and canopies, and would inform future decisions about heating, cooling, geothermal systems, and sequencing improvements with parking lot enhancements.
Thompson reported that the Community Preservation Committee had held its first meeting and would meet again on January 7th for training at the Senior Center at 7 PM. He noted that representatives from many different boards were on the committee, and the training was open to all committee members, not just representatives, to help them understand available resources and processes. Thompson stated the town was on track to collect $750,000 by July 1st through the assessment, making funds potentially available for committee distribution and possible acceleration of projects for May town meeting.
Mary Ellen Fletcher thanked the video production team of Joe Dulet, Nate Beischeim, Nathan Kent, and Daniel for broadcasting the meeting. She noted that Town Administrator Nicholas Conners had offered to take the board to Sam Walker’s after the meeting, though the late hour might be problematic given the 1 AM license limit. Fletcher praised the annual Christmas parade organized by the Swampscott Police Association, emphasizing that participating police officers were volunteers, along with officers from Lynn, Salem, and Nahant departments.
Fletcher highlighted that the high school band participated in the parade for the first time, calling them amazing, and noted that Santa was present along with polished and lit DPW trucks. She thanked the police association for their hard work in making the event festive and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Phelan announced that the next dementia training would be held on February 23rd at Town Hall at 3 PM for community members who wished to attend. She emphasized the importance of community connection during the holiday season, encouraging residents to check on their neighbors and ensure they had someone to celebrate with, noting that holidays are not easy for everyone but that community support is something Swampscott does well. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and presumably approved.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.