See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Addtional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Public Comment (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:05:00)
Katie Phelan, Select Board Chair, called the meeting to order and provided opening remarks. She explained that the tri-chair group had been meeting to organize a financial summit, but decided to hold mini sessions instead due to moving pieces and vacant positions. This joint meeting represents the first of what they hope will be quarterly or more frequent sessions.
Phelan provided logistical instructions for the meeting, noting that the senior center has acoustic issues that cause aggressive feedback. She requested that speakers lean into microphones and avoid turning them on and off. She emphasized that the meeting was scheduled for only two hours and asked participants to stick to the agenda, with off-topic items to be noted on post-its for future meetings.
The meeting opened for public comment, with a three-minute limit per speaker and no public comment allowed during later discussions. Charlie Patios provided public comment regarding the Hawthorne by the Sea restaurant, which is closing this Saturday with an auction scheduled. He urged the Select Board to empower the town administrator to bid on the auction items, estimating their value at approximately $90,000 to $110,000. Patios argued that purchasing the equipment would allow the town to keep the restaurant intact and potentially lease it as a functioning establishment, rather than having all equipment removed and losing the opportunity to rent it as an operational restaurant. He suggested the town could later hold its own auction if they no longer wanted the restaurant.
Phelan noted that no email comments had been received and transitioned to the main agenda item, introducing the capital improvement committee discussion. She explained that Nick and Jason had prepared a realistic five-year capital improvement plan presentation, with questions to be addressed as projects are presented and missing projects discussed at the end.
Capital Improvement Plan Overview and Process (Link: 00:05:00 – 00:19:00)
Nicholas Conners began the capital improvement plan presentation, explaining that the evening’s focus would be on net new projects discussed during department head meetings and the five-year plan structure for town meeting. He thanked attendees for participating in this exercise ahead of the official CIC kickoff, noting it would help him understand community needs and goals better.
The meeting experienced technical difficulties with audio and slide sharing, causing delays and informal conversation among participants about various topics including Halloween candy and sports. Ryan reported that audio was not coming through Teams and was only available on Facebook. Phelan took responsibility for choosing the senior center venue despite its acoustic challenges.
Conners explained that the presentations would preview new requests from the discovery process led by Patrick, with recommendations to be prepared shortly and coordinated with the CIC. He outlined the goal of guiding work through long-term planning, ongoing preventative maintenance, inventory management, and financial alignment to make informed contextual decisions. The CIC process provides structured and objective review of all community needs.
Conners emphasized the community’s strong position compared to other municipalities, highlighting years of established policies and practices for project prioritization. He noted that many communities only use free cash without long-term planning, while this community has guidelines to maintain debt between 5 and 7 percent of the budget, with a 10 percent ceiling including debt exclusions. He credited past and present officials for this planning approach that allows decision-making rather than reactive responses.
The presentation outlined the process moving forward, where Patrick, Conners, and department heads gather requests for recommendations to the CIC. The CIC then develops a detailed five-year plan through public process and department head discussions, followed by formal adoption through the select board and town meeting. Conners emphasized this was a snapshot in time meant to spur discussion about larger new projects, encouraging questions and input about projects that may not be on the current list but are important to the community.
Facilities Capital Requests Presentation (Link: 00:19:00 – 00:58:00)
Max began presenting the proposed FY27 facilities capital requests, starting with several library and municipal building projects. The Library HVAC Controls project involves upgrading controls that are inadequate for a building of the library’s scale, with potential to dovetail with a grant-funded HVAC project. Library flooring replacement targets sections in poor condition, specifically the children’s room and front entrance room. The Fish House exterior improvements address masonry chimney rebuilding, window refurbishment, and ongoing siding and trim work needed due to the building’s harsh coastal location.
Max discussed the 89 Borough Street project, the former Reach Arts building, noting it remains under discussion without a defined scope or dollar value. Veterans have been consulted, but the timeline and project details are still being determined. For school facilities, the Swampscott High School flooring replacement would extend the new LVT material from the entrance to other common spaces currently with failing sheet vinyl. The SHS Cyber Cafe and Guidance Build Out combines two projects: creating an additional guidance space by building a wall, and renovating the cyber cafe into a school store.
The Swampscott Middle School window replacement represents a major project with design funds already appropriated. An RFQ process has been completed and a design firm selected, with contracts being finalized to replace likely all windows at the middle school. The SHS and SMS MEP improvements bundle smaller mechanical, electrical, and plumbing projects across both schools, an approach that has proven successful over the past five years.
District security improvements focus primarily on the high school and middle school, with one small elementary school project. The largest component is a Bi-Directional Amplifier system at the high school to enable radio communication for first responders in the concrete and steel building. The middle school and elementary school have duress button systems that the high school lacks, and the high school’s intrusion system needs front-end repairs.
Max explained the SHS HVAC study as a proactive approach to address the aging system in the nearly 20-year-old building. Some components are already failing, including a condensing unit being replaced at the senior center section. The complex HVAC system requires careful planning rather than reactive responses. The SHS parking lot and solar canopy design project evolved from a simple paving project to include senior center front entrance accessibility improvements and solar canopy infrastructure, with preliminary studies by Consigli showing strong viability.
The SHS envelope improvements address the building’s approaching 20-year age, focusing on stucco-like system repairs in high roof areas, roof drain work, and roofing repairs. The SES Solar Canopy project remains uncertain due to National Grid infrastructure issues, despite being fully designed. Max explained that National Grid’s concerns involve their aging infrastructure, substations, and capacity issues when solar generators potentially push energy back onto the grid or when large users don’t consume expected capacity.
Conners asked about National Grid’s infrastructure costs and whether they could be manageable within the project budget. Max explained they are awaiting National Grid to restart their study to get this information, but working with National Grid’s timelines is very challenging. When asked about the middle school window replacement in relation to a potential $100 million renovation, Max confirmed the hope is that window work would not be wasted, but acknowledged some risk given the building’s condition requiring immediate attention.
A committee member asked about energy incentives for HVAC and window projects. Max confirmed that while windows don’t qualify for incentives (MSBA grants weren’t pursued due to potential core program conflicts), energy projects always leverage utility incentives. The library controls project will likely pair with an HVAC project funded almost entirely through Green Communities program with National Grid incentives.
Max presented three major town projects on the horizon. The library rear entrance project would redesign the entire corridor and processing area, representing more interior work than the current $800,000 front entrance project underway. Phelan asked about walkway improvements between town hall and the library to support increased rear entrance usage, which Max acknowledged as a good idea not yet studied.
The fire station project involves activating the third floor and redesigning the second floor within the existing footprint, driven primarily by equity needs for the changing firefighter population including more women. The current layout historically designed for male firefighters is inadequate long-term. The project would also address the poor condition HVAC system, with design funds already allocated and an architect engaged.
The DPW yard new construction project addresses one of the town’s facilities in poorest condition. The aging facility has trucks that barely fit in bays, roofs in very poor condition requiring ongoing repairs, and generally inadequate working conditions. Despite recent improvements for worker conditions, new construction at the existing site is considered the best long-term solution, though alternative locations have been discussed.
Max then presented major school projects, emphasizing the SMS major renovation as the largest upcoming project. He advocated for submitting a statement of interest, noting the seven-year timeline from submission to project completion. The middle school has major systems in poor condition due to age, with the original section built in the 1950s and a major addition in the 1970s. A boiler from the 1970s addition still operates today.
Max outlined two alternatives for the middle school: pursue a major renovation through the MSBA core program with 40-50% state reimbursement, or address individual systems separately at potentially similar cost but without the comprehensive improvements. Individual system replacement for HVAC and electrical alone could cost $20-30 million, and would trigger additional code requirements for accessibility, elevators, and sprinkler systems.
The major renovation option would provide better value, addressing all systems simultaneously while creating a significantly improved facility. Max explained that renovation projects typically receive higher MSBA reimbursement rates than new construction due to reduced site work costs. The statement of interest submission window opens each January with a March deadline, requiring approval from both the select board and school committee.
Regarding the middle school window project timeline, Max clarified that while design is funded and underway, construction appropriation is expected at the May town meeting for summer 2027 implementation. The delay is due to window ordering lead times – windows cannot be ordered in May and ready for July installation under current supply chain conditions.
Middle School Window Project Discussion (Link: 00:58:00 – 01:08:00)
Max confirmed that all middle school windows could be installed in one summer based on discussions with four design firms during recent interviews. When asked about current lead times from order to delivery, Max acknowledged not knowing the exact timeframe but confirmed it is definitely longer than two months. A committee member asked whether rushing the project into the December special town meeting could enable summer completion, but Max noted they lack cost certainty without completed design work.
Max explained the design timeline, stating schematic design would be completed ahead of the May town meeting to provide cost certainty well in advance. Construction documents are anticipated for late spring, with the design contract currently being finalized. He emphasized that window design for the middle school is complex due to the building’s mixed construction periods – the 1950s original section and 1970s addition were built with different water tightness standards than current practices.
The first stage of the project involves studying the entire facade to understand long-term implications, particularly given potential future renovation projects. A committee member praised Max’s work and suggested organizing information into scenarios – comparing a major renovation approach versus a systems-based approach and their implications for other projects and resource allocation.
Phelan asked whether the town’s recent elementary school project with state funding puts them in a less favorable position for additional MSBA funding, or potentially a better position due to demonstrated successful project management. Max acknowledged uncertainty about this dynamic, noting they face competing factors: being viewed as a small, well-off community that recently received funding versus being seen as a reliable partner that successfully implemented a project.
Max suggested they might be rejected on their first statement of interest submission but could reapply with improvements, though he noted uncertainty about whether MSBA provides substantial feedback explaining rejections. Regarding DPW yard design costs, Max confirmed $200,000 is already appropriated for developing an RFQ, with expectations of achieving at least schematic design depending on whether they focus on one site or examine multiple locations.
A committee member asked about the January statement of interest timeline, noting that with the window opening in January and closing in March, they should consider submitting soon to understand their options and priorities. Max confirmed his intent was to spur discussion about this possibility but noted the missing financial analysis component, including debt service implications that were crucial in previous discussions.
When asked about including windows in a core project statement of interest as a backup plan, Max explained that statements of interest for core projects don’t specify exact components – they indicate intent to pursue a major project without defining precise scope. He noted that if they submitted a statement of interest and proceeded with a major project, windows would inherently be included in the design phase, potentially allowing the separate window project to be backed out if timing aligned appropriately.
Middle School Major Renovation and MSBA Application Process (Link: 01:08:00 – 01:14:00)
Phelan referenced previous discussions about whether to pursue state funding for the window project, noting concerns about the likelihood of a middle school renovation project coming to fruition within five to ten years. She emphasized that even if officials support such a project, the town must ultimately approve it, and historically school projects have failed more often than succeeded in Swampscott.
A committee member asked whether starting the window project would preclude applying for MSBA accelerated repair funding for windows. Max explained they are pursuing a different approach than MSBA’s structured process, which involves deep studies and ultimately costs more in total dollars, though the town pays less due to reimbursement percentages. He confirmed that switching to MSBA would require stopping current progress and starting over with an entirely different process.
When asked about the best scenario if everyone were aligned and ready to vote, Max emphasized the importance of continuing the window design process. He acknowledged a scenario where, if they successfully navigate the statement of interest process and get accepted immediately, it might not make sense to implement the separate window project. However, he noted this would require many factors to align and is not necessarily the most likely outcome.
A committee member confirmed that the middle school major renovation represents the largest project on Max’s facilities list and would dictate how other projects unfold, deserving the most scrutiny and attention in decision-making. Max agreed it is the biggest by dollar value, though noted the DPW project is also significant despite being smaller in footprint and complexity.
The committee member expressed concern about unexpected projects appearing, citing the track project that emerged last spring requiring a minimum of one million dollars without prior warning. They asked about other potential needs like turf field replacement and the field house, requesting a comprehensive audit to understand all facility needs 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 in planning due to shared responsibilities. Max clarified he was focusing specifically on facilities and building projects, which represent only part of the larger capital plan, and suggested this broader perspective was part of the reason for the current joint meeting.
The committee member raised additional concerns about the community life center study costing $100,000 for a potential $60 million project, questioning where such projects fit in the overall picture and emphasizing the need to see the bigger comprehensive view beyond individual bullet points.
DPW Facility and Infrastructure Projects Overview (Link: 01:14:00 – 01:41:00)
A committee member asked why the track and turf situations were not included in Max’s presentation. Conners clarified that these items were included in Gino’s presentation, and Phelan suggested moving to that presentation to address the missing items.
Gino began his presentation by addressing the DPW facility, noting discussions about this facility dating back to 2005 when he was a Capital Improvement Committee member. He emphasized safety concerns, particularly highlighting that mechanics work outside in winter on a lift for trucks over six yards, and noted the facility is not handicap accessible. He acknowledged Max’s assistance over the years and noted a discrepancy in the dollar figures between his and Max’s presentations.
Gino outlined sewer main rehabilitation work, explaining they have spent close to $12 million including a current $3.5 million contract addressing Kings Beach issues from a 2015 EPA consent decree. This work involves Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) that will continue regardless of UV system decisions. The $3.5 million project depends on securing an SRF loan – if not approved, the project would be postponed since they will not borrow the funds otherwise. He noted the EPA’s satisfaction with $3.5 million every two years compared to their previous $2 million every other year pace.
Water meter replacement represents a $3 million project, with meters last replaced in 2005. Given the 15-20 year expected life, the 20-year-old meters are beginning to under-record, resulting in lost revenue that ultimately increases rates for residents. Gino emphasized this project needs to happen within the next year or two.
The track replacement at Upper Jackson became necessary after a referee indicated meets could no longer be held there without repairs. Tree roots from outside the property are uplifting sections of the track, with some areas already cut out and beyond repair. Gino received a $1 million estimate from Field Turf USA including amenities, though Max has met with a second contractor who may provide a lower estimate. The town received a $35,000 state grant that will cover some engineering or design work.
When asked about timing, Gino indicated the DPW facility should happen by FY28, sewer rehab depends on SRF loan approval, water meter replacement should occur within the next couple years, and track funding should be secured this year for work to begin after July. He noted the track serves multiple purposes beyond the single annual high school meet, including recreational walking by residents, physical education classes, and use by over 100 students each semester in track and field programs.
Water tower painting is needed after the 2001 painting, with monthly inspections showing rust development. The $400,000 project serves both aesthetic and preservation purposes. Gino acknowledged not knowing the tower’s age or life expectancy but confirmed it’s a dual-walled steel tank recently inspected by divers.
The sewer vacuum truck would replace a 1985 truck currently used for cleaning catch basins, of which there are 850 in town mandated for DEP cleaning. The current truck with clam mechanism can clean about 10 catch basins per day with debris falling through, while the new $650,000 combination truck could double that capacity and also serve as a sewer jetter replacement.
Water main replacement continues through MWRA interest-free loans with a $500,000 annual allocation. Gino typically carries appropriations to subsequent years to accumulate $1 million for larger, more cost-effective projects. Recent work included Atlantic Avenue from Blodgett to Marble Head Line, plus Beech Bluff Avenue and Palmer Road for $1.1 million. The replacements address tuberculation buildup in old cast iron mains that reduces diameter and flow, replacing them with cement-lined pipes.
Road paving combines Chapter 90 and non-Chapter 90 funding, with MassDOT providing unchanged $300,000 annually for over 22 years despite rising asphalt and labor costs. The town supplements with $350,000 in non-Chapter 90 paving to accomplish more work annually.
Seawall repairs focus on Eisman’s Beach after completing $5.5 million in Kings Beach repairs over four separate projects. The Fisherman’s Beach wall remains in good condition, but Eisman’s Beach requires $250,000 to complete repairs using tailings from Kings Beach work.
Equipment replacement includes a second sander truck at $185,000, with the current 2000 model being replaced and a 2001 model needing future replacement. Gino noted getting 25 years from sanders makes purchasing more economical than leasing.
Lift station upgrades represent the most critical project despite the smaller dollar amount. The main Humphrey Street pump station has three 250-horsepower pumps and one 100-horsepower “pony pump” that runs constantly. The facility, converted from a wastewater plant in 1992, needs pump replacements after 34-35 years of service, requiring $120-150,000 appropriations for the next two years.
Discussion addressed the force main as the most vulnerable component of the sewer system – a 2.5-mile, 24-inch pipe carrying all wastewater to Lynn’s treatment plant. A committee member emphasized the need to evaluate this critical infrastructure, with Gino noting a $400,000 proposal from Wright Pierce for assessment work.
Regarding asset management, a committee member requested a comprehensive schedule of all town assets including useful life, end of life, and replacement costs. Conners confirmed this aligns with established policies and noted discussions with Patrick about compiling existing departmental information into a comprehensive format.
The turf field discussion revealed the field remains in excellent condition with an anticipated minimum five years before replacement. A fund established through user fees from youth groups has accumulated $40-50,000, originally intended to cover 50% of replacement costs. The fees come from outside youth organizations like soccer and lacrosse, not school-related activities.
Clark School Future Use Discussion (Link: 01:41:00 – 01:49:00)
Conners indicated they would move on to technology slides, but a committee member noted the need to clean up paperwork due to transitions in town hall, expressing concern about departments needing upgrades without proper planning processes in place.
A committee member discussed the value of using Clark School as swing space, referencing Marblehead’s use of Eveleth as temporary library space. They emphasized that the recreation department has been without a home for a long time, and the senior center has been reporting overcrowding issues. The current utilization of Clark by these departments serves as a valuable experiment to determine long-term viability.
The recreation department has already launched over 20 programs for December alone, previously having to use locations like Mexicali Grill and other restaurants around town due to lack of dedicated space. The senior center continues to report being at capacity, and their use of Clark space with Charlotte will help determine actual space needs.
Discussion addressed two options not yet fully explored: affordable housing conversion and swing space during housing building renovations. A committee member expressed doubt about the town’s ability to convert a school into residential facility independently, suggesting it would be beyond their means.
Phelan clarified that the original affordable housing proposal envisioned Clark starting as swing space during renovations of existing housing, then becoming permanent housing afterward. This would involve capital investment to create temporary space, allowing residents to move out during renovations, ultimately resulting in more housing units online.
A committee member asked about state assistance for affordable housing conversion. Phelan noted the town’s successful partnerships with organizations like B’nai B’rith and Pine Street, suggesting similar RFP processes could work for Clark if the town chose that direction. However, affordable housing conversion would represent a much larger, longer-term project compared to other options.
The discussion touched on the school department’s consideration of renting space to outside parties. A committee member argued that using the space for Swampscott residents through recreation and senior center programs would be preferable to outside rentals, while noting that schools lack the bandwidth and expertise to serve as landlords.
Phelan suggested that transferring Clark from the school department to the town would be the next step if schools wanted to pursue that direction, similar to how previous buildings have been transferred. This would facilitate broader conversations about short-term and long-term use options.
A committee member asked about state funding sources for recreation and community centers, distinct from school renovation funding. Phelan noted this hadn’t come up in Community Life Center meetings and suggested the feasibility study consultants would have mentioned such funding if available, given that funding represents the biggest hurdle.
Conners mentioned Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding as a potential source, noting that affordable housing and recreation are eligible categories under CPA. A committee member asked about the CPA committee meeting schedule, with Phelan confirming the committee has been seated and meetings are being scheduled within the next two to three weeks.
Phelan concluded the discussion by tabling the last agenda item for the next meeting, which would focus on policies and potential modifications. She invited committee members to email their chairs with additional ideas for future meetings and thanked everyone for their participation.
Meeting Adjournment (Link: 01:49:00 – 01:50:00)
A committee member thanked the administration for preparing materials for the meeting, calling it a really good discussion and expressing hope for many more to come. They noted personal gratitude that they sat through two hours of capital project meetings without hearing the word “pier.”
Phelan acknowledged almost saying the word but deciding to give it a rest. She then called for a motion to adjourn the select board meeting. A committee member made the motion and another seconded it. There was brief confusion about whether the Capital Improvement Committee had opened their meeting, but it was clarified that they had not opened a separate meeting. Phelan thanked everyone and the meeting was adjourned.
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.