See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Introductions (Link: 00:02:00 – 00:05:00)
Katie Phelan, Select Board Chair, called the joint CIC meeting to order, noting that no motion was needed to begin. She explained that the tri-chair group had been meeting to organize a financial summit, but due to moving pieces and vacant positions, they decided to hold mini sessions instead. This meeting represents the first of what they hope will be quarterly or more frequent joint meetings.
Phelan thanked attendees for their flexibility in rescheduling from the previous week and provided technical guidance from Joe regarding the senior center’s acoustics. She instructed participants to lean into microphones to avoid aggressive feedback and to leave microphones on unless having private discussions.
Phelan outlined the meeting structure, explaining they had a two-hour time slot and would stick strictly to the agenda. She introduced a system using post-it notes to capture off-topic items or rabbit holes for future tri-chair meeting agendas. The meeting would begin with public comment, limited to three minutes per person, with no additional public comment allowed during discussions. She opened the floor for any public comment on the agenda items.
Public Comment (Link: 00:05:00 – 00:07:00)
Phelan recognized Charlie Patios for public comment. Patios addressed the Select Board regarding the Hawthorne by the Sea restaurant closing and its upcoming auction this Saturday. He strongly urged the Select Board to empower the town administrator to bid on the auction items to keep the restaurant equipment intact.
Patios argued that maintaining all equipment within the restaurant would provide the town with an opportunity to rent it as a functioning establishment, whereas allowing the equipment to be removed through auction would eliminate any chance of renting it as a working restaurant. He estimated the equipment value at approximately ninety to one hundred ten thousand dollars, noting that the auction results would reveal the actual worth of individual items to buyers and to the town.
Patios proposed that if the town purchased the equipment at auction value, they could lease it to someone else as a fully functioning restaurant with all tables, chairs, dishes, utensils, and kitchen equipment intact, creating a operational restaurant immediately. He suggested that if the town later decided not to continue operating the restaurant, they could hold their own auction and receive approximately the same value that Anthony’s would get from their current auction, while having had the benefit of a functioning restaurant available for rental for one, two, or three years.
Phelan thanked Patios and asked for additional public comments. Seeing none, she noted that the public had also been invited to submit comments via email to her, but she had not received any.
Capital Improvement Plan Introduction and Process Overview (Link: 00:07:00 – 00:21:00)
Phelan introduced the main discussion topic, explaining that the Capital Improvement Committee had been invited to discuss the five-year capital improvement plan. She noted that Nick and Jason had undertaken significant work to present a realistic five-year plan, with the format allowing for questions during project presentations and discussion of any missing projects at the end.
A speaker identified as Nick began the presentation, explaining that the evening would focus on net new projects discussed with department heads during the discovery process. He noted that the formal five-year plan development would be the CIC’s upcoming work. Technical difficulties arose with the presentation slides and audio systems, with Ryan reporting that audio was not coming through Teams but was available on Facebook.
During technical troubleshooting, there was informal conversation among attendees about various topics including sports games and Halloween candy. Phelan took responsibility for choosing the senior center venue to allow participants to sit facing the same direction rather than awkwardly facing each other in chairs.
Due to ongoing technical issues preventing Teams participants from hearing the audio, Phelan requested that those on Teams switch to YouTube or Facebook to hear the presentation. She asked Diane to post a message in the comment section informing participants of the technological difficulties and directing them to alternative platforms, acknowledging this would reduce participation levels.
Nick resumed the presentation, explaining that the slides outlined the established process, policies, and practices for project prioritization that had been in place for years. He emphasized that the community was in a better position than many others because they engaged in long-term planning rather than only using free cash or reactive approaches.
Nick highlighted the community’s adherence to debt guidelines of staying between five and seven percent of the budget on debt, with ten percent as the ceiling. He noted that when including current debt exclusions, they were approaching that ceiling, but emphasized this put them in a stronger position than other communities due to consistent planning efforts over time.
He explained that their approach included funding appropriate projects through enterprise funds, planning for major projects requiring debt exclusions, and socializing these projects over time to build support. Nick stressed that this systematic approach allowed them to make proactive decisions rather than simply react to circumstances.
Nick outlined the process moving forward, explaining that he and Patrick had been working with department heads to gather requests for recommendations to the CIC. The CIC would then develop a detailed five-year plan including public process and discussions with department heads, followed by formal adoption through the Select Board and town meeting. He concluded by noting they would turn to department heads to present larger new projects, encouraging questions during presentations and input on any missing projects that should be considered.
Facilities Capital Requests Presentation (Link: 00:21:00 – 00:40:00)
A speaker identified as Max began presenting the proposed FY27 facilities capital requests. He noted that audio issues appeared to be resolved for Teams participants and proceeded to review multiple projects, inviting questions during or after the presentation.
Max outlined several library projects, including HVAC controls upgrades that could potentially be paired with a larger HVAC project funded through grants. He described library flooring replacement needed in the children’s room and front entrance room due to poor conditions, noting that some sections would be deferred due to visions for a larger rear entrance project.
He presented the Fish House exterior improvements project, explaining that the notable building requires ongoing maintenance due to its difficult waterfront location. The project includes rebuilding masonry chimneys, refurbishing windows, and addressing siding and trim work. Max also mentioned 89 Barrow Street, the former Reach Arts building, as a discussion point without a specific dollar value, noting ongoing meetings with veterans and uncertainty about scope and timeline.
For school facilities, Max described the Swampscott High School flooring replacement project using LVT material similar to the new entrance flooring and elementary school installations. He explained the SHS Cyber Cafe and guidance build-out project, which combines creating an additional guidance space through wall construction and renovating the former cyber cafe into a school store.
Max detailed the Swampscott Middle School window replacement project, noting that design funds were appropriated last year and a design firm has been selected with contract finalization in progress. He described this as a very significant project likely replacing all windows at the middle school.
He outlined SHS and SMS MEP improvements, combining smaller mechanical, electrical, and plumbing projects across both schools, noting success with this consolidated approach over the past five years. The district security improvements project spans all schools, with major components including a BDA system for first responder radio communication at the high school and duress button systems similar to those already installed at the middle and elementary schools.
Max presented the SHS HVAC study as a proactive measure for the nearly twenty-year-old building, explaining that while the building is in good shape overall, some HVAC component failures are beginning to appear. He described the system as very complex with multiple approaches possible for future larger projects.
The SHS parking lot and solar canopy design project evolved from an exclusively paving project to include senior center front entrance accessibility improvements and solar canopy infrastructure. Max noted that preliminary studies with Consigli indicated the solar canopy appears very viable.
Max discussed SHS envelope improvements for the approaching twenty-year-old building, including significant repairs to stucco-like wall systems in higher sections near roofs, additional roof drain work, and roofing area improvements. He also addressed the SES Solar Canopy project, which has been fully designed but held up by National Grid infrastructure issues, though he noted it remains a potentially excellent project.
Nick asked for clarification about the National Grid infrastructure hurdle. Max explained that the issue involves National Grid’s infrastructure capacity, wiring, and substations rather than scheduling. He detailed how solar generation and large energy usage can impact National Grid’s infrastructure planning, requiring expensive improvements potentially costing hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Nick inquired whether National Grid’s costs could be manageable within the project budget. Max responded that they lack complete information and are waiting for National Grid to restart their study, noting that working with National Grid’s timelines is very challenging.
Nick asked about the middle school window replacement in relation to a later-mentioned one hundred million dollar renovation project. Max confirmed the hope that window replacement work would not be wasted, but acknowledged some risk since the full scope of the middle school project remains uncertain. He emphasized that window conditions require immediate action despite this uncertainty.
A committee member asked about energy incentives for HVAC and window projects. Max explained that while windows don’t qualify for incentives since MSBA grants aren’t available, energy projects always leverage utility incentives. He noted the library controls project would likely pair with an HVAC project funded almost entirely through Green Communities program incentives.
Max concluded by mentioning they may need congressional office assistance for the solar canopy project and transitioned to discussing larger town projects. He presented the library rear entry project, noting the current front entry project is underway this week. The rear entry project would include redesigning the entire library corridor and processing area, representing more interior work compared to the current eight hundred thousand dollar exterior front entry project.
Major Town Projects Discussion (Link: 00:40:00 – 00:46:00)
A committee member expressed concern about the library rear entrance design sketch, noting that while it appeared lovely and formal, accessibility was not apparent. The member hoped accessibility would be part of the plan.
Max responded that the design shown was accessible, explaining there was a lift to the left of the stairway that was difficult to see in the sketch. He noted they were examining both lift and ramp options for accessibility.
The committee member, who works in geriatrics, expressed strong preference for a ramp over a lift, citing problems with lifts including user confusion, mechanical failures, and exterior rusting. Max confirmed the project would be one hundred percent accessible and that they were considering all options, noting the design was static at this point since it was explored during the front entrance design phase.
Phelan asked whether the rear entrance project would include walkway improvements to better connect Town Hall parking to the library, noting the current pathway is narrow and might need expansion if more heavily utilized. Max responded they had not yet examined that possibility but thought it was a great idea, mentioning that the upcoming side entry project on the special town meeting warrant would involve some walkway redesign due to grading requirements.
Max presented the fire station project, explaining that while a former chief envisioned a major addition renovation, the current chief preferred a more scaled-back approach. Using existing design funds, they are working with an architect to examine the existing footprint and structure, focusing on activating the third floor and redesigning the second floor.
He explained the project was primarily driven by equity needs for the changing firefighter population, particularly accommodating more women firefighters in a building historically designed for predominantly male staff. The current layout allows them to get by temporarily, but long-term major adjustments are needed for equity. Max noted they were very early in design with the dollar value being a ballpark estimate, and the project would also address major building needs including a HVAC system in very poor condition.
Max described the DPW yard new construction project, noting they already have funded design to examine this overlooked facility that is in some of the poorest condition in town. He explained the old facility has received little attention over the years, with trucks barely fitting into tight bays and roofs in very poor condition requiring repairs that day to keep operations running.
He noted significant work over recent years to make the facility more acceptable for workers, but concluded that new construction, probably at the existing site, represents the best long-term solution based on recent DPW discussions. Max acknowledged past discussions about alternative locations but noted the difficulty of finding suitable sites in Swampscott.
A committee member asked about the police station’s condition, noting it was about the same age as the school. Max clarified the police station was actually newer than the high school and holding up well, with a few projects completed over the years. He indicated it would start appearing on their radar more but remained in fairly good condition, mentioning one smaller build-out project at the police station that did not meet the threshold for inclusion in the presentation due to its smaller dollar value.
Major School Projects Discussion (Link: 00:46:00 – 01:01:00)
A committee member sought clarification about the library entrance project, noting that 2024 records showed an $800,000 appropriation for entrance work listed as 10% complete. Max confirmed that construction began this week with the front of the library being torn up for a major renovation. He clarified that the 2024 appropriation was committed and the rear entrance would be incremental to that project.
The committee member asked about the special town meeting item, and Max confirmed it was also incremental to past approvals. He explained the side entry was fully designed with complete construction documents, noting it made sense to design it simultaneously with the front entrance, though it was never planned within the original appropriation scope.
Phelan encouraged anyone who had not recently toured the DPW facility to do so, emphasizing the dire conditions without being dramatic. She noted that while $15 million for truck garages might seem excessive, significant work occurs at the facility beyond vehicle storage. Max agreed that recent months had given residents a good view of the facility’s tough conditions.
A committee member echoed these concerns, recalling a tour from years ago when serving on the Select Board when the facility already needed substantial work, noting it was well beyond time for this work to be completed.
Max presented major school projects, focusing on the SMS major renovation as the largest item that had been on the capital plan for several years. He advocated for submitting a statement of interest this year, noting the seven-year timeline from statement of interest to project completion, which was particularly concerning given the middle school’s aging systems.
He explained his support for the project based on multiple major systems in very poor condition due to age, with the first section built in the 1950s and a major addition in the 1970s. Max showed a picture of a boiler from the 1970s addition still in use, emphasizing the risk and need to focus on this building after years of concentrating on elementary schools.
Max noted they had begun addressing some middle school needs with completed roof and fire alarm projects and the advancing window project, representing better management than previous approaches to elementary schools. However, he identified an inflection point requiring decisions about the building’s future, with systems in poor condition that could be individually fixed at great expense while leaving the building largely unchanged.
He proposed the MSBA core program as an alternative, acknowledging a statement of interest might not be accepted immediately after completing the elementary school project, but emphasizing the value of persistence. Max noted the state would reimburse 40-50% with potentially higher reimbursement due to less site work compared to the elementary school project.
Max detailed the major system needs including HVAC, electrical distribution, and building-wide electrical service, estimating these systems alone could cost $20-30 million based on the elementary school’s $20 million cost for similar systems. He emphasized that renovations are not easier or cheaper than new construction.
A committee member asked for clarification about the relationship between the major renovation and an additional $50 million item. Max explained these were alternative options presented for comparison – either pursue a larger MSBA project or address major individual systems, which would cascade into additional requirements due to code compliance for accessibility, elevators, and sprinkler systems.
He noted that technology needs, which could be addressed during electrical renovation, would require millions of dollars to bring the building to parity with other district buildings. When asked about project phasing, Max indicated the work might be possible in phases since emptying the middle school would be extremely difficult, suggesting the Clock building might be needed for temporary space.
A committee member inquired about grant opportunities for renovations versus new construction. Max explained that major renovation projects fall under the same MSBA core program as new construction, with smaller grant opportunities available for specific items like roofs, windows, and heat pumps. He noted they did not pursue MSBA grants for windows because communities anticipating core projects are directed not to submit for accelerated repair projects.
Nick asked about reimbursement differences between new construction and renovation. Max explained that renovation actually offers higher expected reimbursement due to lack of site work, as MSBA’s formula includes a cap on site work that new construction projects typically hit but renovations rarely reach.
A committee member asked about reimbursement differences between the major renovation and alternate systems approaches. Max explained that alternate systems would only receive reimbursement for specific accelerated repair projects like heat pumps, not for electrical, accessibility, or technology improvements that would be covered under a comprehensive renovation.
The committee member requested details about the statement of interest process. Max explained that submissions define whether they’re for core program or accelerated repair, but full scope isn’t defined initially. He noted MSBA’s preference for renovation over demolition and new construction, viewing working with existing buildings more favorably.
Regarding timeline, Max explained the submission window opens each January with about three months to submit by March. The submission itself is manageable, but requires votes from both the Select Board and School Committee approving the submission and supporting the statement of interest.
A committee member confirmed that both renovation options were separate from the already-allocated middle school window project. Max clarified they were currently designing the window project and would seek construction appropriation at town meeting, though construction funds had not yet been appropriated.
Nick asked about timing for the window project warrant article. Max expected it in May for construction in summer 2027, explaining they couldn’t appropriate in May and complete the project the following summer due to timeline constraints and the requirement to complete window work during summer when school is not in session.
A committee member questioned the timeline, asking why a May approval couldn’t result in summer 2026 construction. Max explained that while bids could be conducted before funding, contracts couldn’t be signed without appropriated funds, and contractors wouldn’t order windows until funding was secured. Current lead times make it impractical to order windows in May for July installation, unlike in previous years when such timelines were possible.
School Facilities Projects Discussion (Link: 01:01:00 – 01:10:00)
A committee member asked about the installation timeframe for middle school windows. Max confirmed that after interviewing four design firms, they were confident all middle school windows could be installed in one summer.
Phelan asked about current lead times from order to delivery. Max did not know the specific timeframe but confirmed it was definitely longer than two months. A committee member asked whether adding the project to the December special town meeting could enable summer completion. Max said probably, but noted they lacked cost certainty since design was not yet complete.
When asked about design completion timing, Max explained the design would reach schematic level before the May town meeting, providing cost certainty well in advance. Construction documents were anticipated for late spring, though dates remained tentative as they were still finalizing the contractor agreement.
Max noted the window design complexity due to the building’s mixed construction periods, with different water-tightness standards between the 1950s original section and 1970s addition compared to current standards. The first project stage would involve studying the entire facade to understand long-term implications, particularly given potential future projects.
A committee member praised Max’s work and suggested organizing information into scenarios, such as what other projects would accompany a major renovation versus a systems approach. The member emphasized the need to examine town-wide scenarios and understand trade-offs, noting that prioritization involves determining what cannot be done if resources are allocated to schools versus town infrastructure.
Phelan asked whether their recent elementary school project put them in a less favorable position for state funding or potentially better positioned due to demonstrated successful project management. Max acknowledged uncertainty, noting two competing factors: being viewed as a small, well-off community that recently received funding versus being seen as an excellent partner who successfully implemented a project.
Max speculated they might be rejected initially but could reapply with improved understanding, though he was unsure how these factors would influence MSBA decisions. Phelan asked about feedback if rejected, but Max did not know if substantial reasons would be provided. A committee member noted that historically rejections were simply “no” without explanation.
Phelan asked about DPW yard design costs, noting they must exceed $100,000. Max confirmed $200,000 was already appropriated for developing an RFQ, expecting at least schematic design completion. The scope would depend on whether they focused on one site versus examining multiple locations throughout town.
A committee member returned to the letter of interest timeline, confirming the January opening and March closing window. Given the November timeframe, they questioned whether this should be immediate consideration, noting that rejection would clarify priorities and change the entire project landscape.
The committee member asked if Max intended to submit in January. Max responded that he hoped to spur discussions about this possibility but acknowledged missing financial analysis including debt service implications, which were crucial in previous conversations. He emphasized taking a facilities-centric view that required broader layered conversation.
A committee member asked about including windows in a statement of interest application as backup if not accepted. Max explained this approach wouldn’t work since SOI submissions for core projects tell MSBA about major comprehensive work without specifying exact details.
When asked about SOI response timing, Max did not know the timeframe. The committee member suggested that given the year-and-a-half window timeline, including windows in the application might make sense. Max noted that if they pursued a major project and hadn’t completed windows by design phase, window replacement would be inherently included.
Max acknowledged this timeline consideration could work together but emphasized he wasn’t advocating for delaying windows, noting current unacceptable conditions requiring immediate advancement. However, he recognized this could be a scenario for consideration years down the road.
State Funding and MSBA Application Process (Link: 01:10:00 – 01:16:00)
Phelan referenced previous discussions about the reverse scenario, questioning whether to pursue state funding for the window project given uncertainty about the middle school project’s timeline over the next five to ten years. She noted that even if officials support a major project, the town must still approve projects of that magnitude, and historically school projects have failed more often than succeeded in the community.
A committee member asked Max whether starting the window project would preclude applying to MSBA for accelerated repair funding. Max confirmed this would definitely change the process, explaining they were pursuing a different track than MSBA’s accelerated repair program, which has a structured, lengthy approach requiring deep studies. He noted that while MSBA projects cost more in total, communities pay less due to percentage-based reimbursement, but the process is complicated and layered.
The committee member asked for Max’s recommendation if everyone were aligned and ready to vote. Max emphasized the importance of continuing the window design process, noting that if they achieved immediate acceptance into the MSBA program and understood the timeline, there might be a scenario where implementing the window project wouldn’t make sense. However, he considered this unlikely given the many factors that would need to align.
The committee member confirmed that the middle school major renovation or alternate systems represented the largest item on Max’s facilities list. Max agreed, noting it would dictate how many other projects unfold, though he acknowledged the DPW project was also significant despite being smaller in footprint and complexity.
The committee member expressed concern about unexpected projects appearing suddenly, citing the track project that emerged last spring requiring a minimum of one million dollars without prior warning. They questioned the status of other potential needs like turf field replacement and the field house, requesting a comprehensive audit to understand all facility requirements and establish proper priorities.
Max acknowledged these concerns, noting recent meetings with Gino and Jason about fields and longer-term planning. He explained that shared spaces create complications for planning responsibilities and clarified that his presentation focused specifically on building facilities projects, which represented only part of the larger capital plan. He noted this meeting’s purpose was to think more holistically about project approaches.
The committee member pointed to the community life center study as an example, noting they were spending $100,000 on a study for a potential $60 million project, questioning where this fit in the overall picture. They expressed desire to see the bigger picture beyond the individual bullet points presented, specifically questioning why the track and turf situations were not included in Max’s list.
Nick indicated that these items were included in Gino’s presentation. Phelan suggested moving to Gino’s presentation to identify any missing elements after that discussion. The committee member thanked Max for his presentation.
Technical Setup and Transition (Link: 01:17:00 – 01:18:00)
There was a brief technical setup period as speakers prepared for the next presentation. A speaker identified as Gino was setting up his microphone and positioning, with some informal conversation about preferring to present from the back of the room.
During the setup, there was casual discussion among attendees, including references to the high school construction timeline and comparisons to the old police station’s appearance. A committee member made comments about the previous police station’s condition, describing items hanging throughout the facility.
Phelan addressed technical difficulties with the presentation display, noting that while they had the materials in their packets, there were challenges getting the slides to display properly. The speaker indicated he could work from his own materials to proceed with the presentation.
DPW Facility and Infrastructure Projects (Link: 01:18:00 – 01:32:00)
Gino began his presentation by addressing the DPW facility, noting it had been discussed since 2005 when he was a member of the Capital Improvement Committee. He emphasized the urgency of the project, highlighting a critical safety issue where mechanics must work outside in winter weather on a lift for trucks weighing six yards and above, as the garage is not handicap accessible and has multiple other issues.
Gino presented the sewer main rehabilitation project, explaining they have spent close to $12 million including a current $3.5 million contract addressing Kings Beach issues stemming from a 2015 EPA consent decree. He described this as IDDE work (Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination) that would continue regardless of UV system decisions. The $3.5 million project depends on securing an SRF loan, and if not approved, the project would be postponed rather than borrowed for locally.
He noted that previously they were doing $2 million of work every other year, which EPA considered too slow, but $3.5 million every two years would satisfy EPA requirements. Gino then addressed water meter replacement, a $3 million project needed because meters installed in 2005 were approaching their 15-20 year expected life and beginning to under-record, resulting in lost revenue that ultimately increases rates for all residents.
Gino explained the track replacement at Upper Jackson, noting they had cut out damaged sections caused by tree roots from outside the property. A referee at a track meet indicated they could no longer host meets if the track wasn’t repaired. He estimated $1 million based on discussions with Field Turf USA, though Max had met with a second contractor who might provide a lower estimate.
A committee member asked about timing for these projects. Gino indicated he would be happy if the DPW facility happened in FY28, sewer rehab depended on the SRF loan, water meter replacement should occur within the next couple years, and track funding should happen this year with work beginning after July when funding becomes available.
When questioned about the track’s usage justifying the cost, Gino noted it serves recreational purposes with residents walking daily. A committee member added that over 100 students each semester participate in track and field, making it the most-used facility, and it’s also used for physical education classes. Gino confirmed it’s a beautiful facility surrounding a soccer field in good condition.
Nick mentioned they received a $35,000 state grant for the track project. Gino confirmed this would likely cover engineering or design work but not much more. He then presented water tower painting, noting the tower was last painted in 2001 and requires monthly inspections due to developing rust, with painting needed for both aesthetics and preservation.
When asked about the water tower’s age and life expectancy, Gino acknowledged he didn’t know but noted it was a dual-walled steel tank recently inspected by divers. While he didn’t consider replacement imminent, he recognized it would be a significant future expense.
Gino described the sewer vacuum truck project, explaining their current 1985 truck with clam mechanism for cleaning catch basins works suboptimally, managing about 10 basins per day with debris falling through. The new combination truck would replace their sewer jetter and double their catch basin cleaning capacity, helping meet DEP mandates for cleaning 850 storm drains in town.
When asked if the $650,000 was for a new truck, Gino confirmed the price. Nick inquired about used options like fire trucks, and Gino expressed concern about purchasing used equipment that may have been abused by contractors who use such trucks for excavation work, though he acknowledged it could be explored.
Gino presented water main replacement using MWRA interest-free loans, explaining their current $500,000 annual allocation. He typically carries appropriations to subsequent years to accumulate $1 million for larger projects with better value. He cited their recent $1.1 million Atlantic Avenue project from Blodgett to Marble Head line, including Beech Bluff Avenue and Palmer Road, emphasizing the importance of preventing breaks and addressing tuberculation buildup in old cast iron mains.
He explained their combined Chapter 90 and non-Chapter 90 paving program, noting that MassDOT’s $300,000 annual allocation based on roadway miles hadn’t changed in over 22 years despite rising asphalt and labor costs. They supplement this with $350,000 in non-Chapter 90 paving to accomplish more work annually.
Gino detailed seawall repairs, noting excellent progress at Kings Beach with $5.5 million invested over four phases, leaving that wall in excellent shape. They had moved to Eisman’s Beach (also called New Ocean Beach), skipping Fisherman’s Beach which was in good condition. He had just contracted to use Kings Beach tailings for larger holes and was seeking $250,000 to complete the Eisman’s Beach wall.
For equipment replacement, Gino explained his request for a second sander, having received appropriation for one last year out of two requested at $185,000 each. The sanders being replaced were from 2000 and 2001, making them 24-25 years old. He preferred purchasing over leasing, believing they could get another 25 years from a new truck.
Gino concluded with lift station upgrades, describing this as the most important item despite its smaller cost. Their main Humphrey Street pump station has three 250-horsepower pumps and one 100-horsepower “pony pump” that runs constantly. The pony pump was recently replaced, but the 250-horsepower pumps needed replacement after 34-35 years of service since the station’s 1992 conversion from a wastewater plant. He anticipated requesting $120,000-$150,000 appropriations for the next two years to replace these pumps.
Lift Station and Water System Maintenance (Link: 01:32:00 – 01:40:00)
A committee member asked for clarification on the number of pumps at the lift station. Gino confirmed there are three 250-horsepower pumps and one 100-horsepower pump at the pump station.
A committee member sought clarification on the timing of the $120,000 appropriations. Gino explained this year’s request might be slightly higher because he used a previous year’s appropriation for the pony pump to place a $23,000 deposit on a 250-horsepower pump.
A committee member asked about the difference between water main replacement and force main replacement. Gino confirmed there was a huge difference and explained that the force main consists of a 2.5-mile, 24-inch pipe carrying all wastewater from the pump station to the Lynn wastewater plant. He noted that if something went wrong with this system, they would be in big trouble, similar to catastrophic failures that occurred in Hull.
Gino mentioned he had a proposal for force main evaluation that he would send to Nick and Patrick for review, estimating the cost at approximately $400,000. Phelan asked about seawall repairs under Hawthorne, and Gino acknowledged this should be examined, noting that when they had a failure at Mission on the Bay, contractors indicated the Hawthorne seawall was in better condition but should still be added to the seawall repair list.
Nick asked whether the $3 million water meter replacement cost was all-inclusive for subcontractor installation in homes. Gino confirmed this was correct, explaining they would work with two vendors as they did in 2005 – one to purchase meters and another to install them – to achieve better value.
A committee member requested a comprehensive schedule of all town assets including useful life, end of life, and replacement costs, noting they had never seen such a document. Nick responded that this was part of their policies and that he and Patrick had discussed it that afternoon, with plans to compile information from department heads for committee discussions and broader sharing.
Gino noted they have an asset management plan for infrastructure including sewer, water, and drain systems. Nick acknowledged that much information exists with department heads but needs organization and collation for big-picture analysis, emphasizing they weren’t starting from scratch but needed to bring existing information together.
Phelan asked Gino to discuss the turf field. He explained they were told the field would have a useful life of 10-15 years, and as someone who still chains at football games, he noted referees consistently praise the field’s excellent condition. He anticipated a minimum of five more years before replacement would be needed.
A committee member asked about the fund established for annual contributions toward future turf replacement. Gino confirmed this existed, funded by user fees from youth groups. When asked if funding was on target for replacement timing, Gino explained the original hope was to fund 50% of replacement costs, as fully funding would require prohibitively high fees for youth user groups.
A committee member suggested including wastewater treatment options like outfall or UV treatment in the capital plan. Gino responded that they would only pursue such projects with significant state or federal funding, similar to the 40% MSBA funding for school projects. He noted their current $3.5 million investment was making significant improvements to the Swampscott side of the outfall at Kings Beach.
Nick mentioned that Klinefelder would present to the Select Board next week or the following meeting about last year’s results. He suggested including long-term wastewater solutions in out-year planning, acknowledging the numbers were even more uncertain than other asset management projections. He committed to working with Klinefelder’s recommendations and IDDE work impacts.
Nick asked for clarification about turf field user fees, questioning whether these would otherwise go to the school department. Phelan clarified these came from youth lacrosse, soccer, and flag football groups. Gino confirmed that high school and middle school user fees go to the school, but these were outside groups including youth soccer, lacrosse, and flag football not directly connected to schools.
When asked about the current account balance, Nick indicated it was between $40,000 and $50,000, noting that a million-dollar replacement was approaching. He observed this situation was common in communities where user fees were intended to defray costs but essentially represented another way to reach the same taxpayers, as user groups were typically from the community, with fees kept reasonable to maintain field operations and lighting.
Turf Field and Track Facility Funding (Link: 01:40:00 – 01:43:00)
Gino clarified that the turf field fund balance was lower than stated because they had reduced fees by 50% for soccer and youth lacrosse groups who funded the field lights. He explained they made a deal where 50% of the lighting costs would be deducted from fees, with the other 50% provided as a straight donation.
A committee member questioned the track facility investment, asking how many home track meets had been hosted at Upper Jackson in the past five years. Gino indicated it was typically one per year, with four meets over five years due to missing meets in recent years. The committee member calculated this as $100,000 per year to host a track meet.
Other speakers corrected this assessment, noting the high school hosts multiple meets annually and the middle school hosts two to four meets per year at Jackson. They also mentioned the unified track team hosts meets at the facility.
Phelan expanded on the facility’s broader usage, explaining the track encompasses a soccer field used for youth soccer games and school activities. She noted the elementary school uses the facility, citizens use it for events like the turkey trot, and residents regularly walk the track for recreation.
A committee member asked about utilization hours for the current vacuum truck equipment, questioning whether it would be cost-effective to rent versus buy the new equipment. They compared it to other assets that might sit unused most of the year versus equipment that would be used weekly for cleaning grates.
Gino acknowledged the new equipment wouldn’t be used every week but would be utilized significantly more than their current 1985 truck. He noted this was both an equipment capacity issue and a manpower efficiency issue.
A committee member emphasized the importance of re-evaluating their vulnerability regarding the force main, identifying it as a priority item. Gino agreed to address this concern. Nick indicated they still had more presentations to cover.
Capital Planning Organization and Asset Management (Link: 01:43:00 – 01:44:00)
A committee member thanked Gino and Nick requested to move to the technology slides for capital planning. A committee member emphasized the need to clean up the paperwork and organizational aspects of capital planning on a tactical level, noting the many transitions in town hall over time.
The committee member expressed concern about being unprepared for urgent departmental upgrades, describing a scenario where they might be “up a creek” without proper planning and having to rush through solutions like leasing mobile school setups.
A committee member referenced Marblehead’s experience when Eveleth went offline, noting it became swing space that served as a library for a period, though they were uncertain about its current use. They emphasized the importance of having flexible space available for various municipal needs.
The committee member highlighted that the recreation department had been without a permanent home for an extended period, and the senior center had consistently reported being at capacity with programming constraints. They noted that the current opportunity to utilize Clark building would be telling in determining whether it could sustain current activities and whether that arrangement fit long-term municipal space planning goals.
Clark School Future Use Options (Link: 01:45:00 – 01:52:00)
A committee member, who serves as liaison to the Recreation Commission, praised the current exercise as valuable, noting the recreation department had put forth over 20 programs for December alone. Previously, they had to utilize locations like Mexicali Grill and other restaurants around town due to lack of dedicated space, but now had access to Clark School to capitalize on programming opportunities.
The committee member noted that the senior center consistently reported being at capacity, and while uncertain how much space they were using at Clark, they were likely working with Charlotte to maximize their space allocation. They viewed both departments as valuable town services utilizing Clark effectively.
Regarding affordable housing and swing space options for housing building renovations, the committee member expressed doubt about converting a school to residential facility being within their means. Phelan clarified that the original proposal envisioned Clark starting as swing space during renovations, then becoming permanent housing afterward, requiring some capital investment to create appropriate space.
The committee member asked about state assistance for affordable housing funding. Phelan indicated they hadn’t progressed far enough to determine funding sources but noted the town’s successful partnerships with organizations like B’nai B’rith and Pine Street for similar projects. She suggested Clark could potentially go out for RFP with similar partnership arrangements.
The committee member acknowledged that affordable housing would be a much larger, longer-term project compared to shorter-term options. They noted that one alternative was having the school department rent space to outside parties, but preferred seeing Swampscott residents utilize the space rather than going outside the community.
The committee member argued that schools lacked the bandwidth and expertise to serve as landlords. Phelan suggested the solution would be for the school committee to vote transferring the building to the town, similar to how previous school buildings had been transferred, which would facilitate broader conversations about short and long-term use.
Phelan anticipated that discussing these options in a public forum would generate additional interest and ideas beyond what had been presented. A committee member asked about state funding for recreation and community centers, similar to school renovation funding.
Phelan responded that such funding hadn’t been mentioned in Community Life Center meetings, though the feasibility study consultants might have information about available funding sources. She noted that if such funding existed, consultants likely would have led with that information given that funding represents the biggest hurdle.
Nick suggested considering CPA funding, noting that affordable housing and recreation were eligible categories under Community Preservation Act funding. A committee member asked about CPA committee meeting schedules, and Phelan confirmed the committee had been seated and was working to schedule meetings within the next two to three weeks.
Phelan concluded the Clark School discussion and indicated they would table the final discussion item for the next meeting. She noted the next meeting would focus on policies and whether they needed to be kept, modified, or changed, encouraging committee members to email chairs with additional ideas for future meetings.
A committee member thanked the administration for preparing materials and praised the discussion as hopefully the first of many. They expressed personal gratitude for sitting through two hours of capital project meetings without hearing the word “pier.” Phelan acknowledged almost mentioning it but deciding to give it a rest.
Phelan called for a motion to adjourn the Select Board meeting. A committee member made the motion with a second. There was brief confusion about whether the Capital Improvement Committee had opened their meeting, but it was clarified they had not, so no adjournment was needed for that committee. Phelan thanked everyone for their participation.
Meeting Conclusion (Link: 01:53:00 – 01:54:00)
A speaker briefly said “Sam” but provided no additional context or content in this final segment of the meeting transcript.
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.