See AI Disclaimer at Bottom
Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Appointments (Link: 00:01:00 – 00:08:00)
Douglas Thompson opened the January 7, 2026 Swampscott Select Board meeting, explaining that the chair was not feeling well and he would be leading the meeting. After the Pledge of Allegiance, Thompson announced two important appointments to fill key positions in town government.
The first appointment was Patrick Luddy as the new Finance Director. Danielle Leonard made a motion to appoint, which was seconded. Mary Ellen Fletcher asked about support for Luddy in his new role, noting that previous new hires had received significant backup assistance. Nicholas Conners, the Town Administrator, confirmed that Eric and Bill were excited about this direction and would put together a proposal focused on supporting Luddy rather than having Bill work on-site weekly. Thompson noted this appointment would create an opening for another role, which Conners said he would address during his Town Administrator report.
David Grishman expressed enthusiasm for the appointment, noting that Luddy started as an intern and worked his way up, saving the town millions of dollars with bonding work. Thompson praised Luddy’s consistent, high-quality advice and work product. Katie Phelan called Luddy a “shining star” and praised his professionalism and helpfulness, noting she remembered when he started as an intern while she was still working in the schools. Fletcher confirmed Luddy had been with the town for over seven years and has a master’s degree in accounting. Luddy thanked the board and Town Administrator for the opportunity and expressed his commitment to contributing in new ways. The appointment was approved unanimously.
The second appointment was Kathleen Dupont as the new Town Clerk. Conners explained that Dupont is currently the assistant city clerk in Beverly and comes highly recommended from elected officials and city hall staff. She has experience in both Beverly and Peabody and has earned certifications including Certified Municipal Clerk and Certified Massachusetts Municipal Clerk. Phelan made a motion to appoint, which was seconded. Fletcher praised Dupont’s qualifications and noted that Swampscott has a history of wonderful clerks. Thompson thanked Mike for stepping in during the interim period. Dupont expressed her appreciation and looked forward to working with everyone. The appointment was approved unanimously.
Town Administrator Report (Link: 00:08:00 – 00:20:00)
Nicholas Conners began his Town Administrator report by acknowledging the newly appointed staff, praising Patrick Luddy for acting as finance director since Conners arrived and providing direct, informational advice on all finance-related matters. He also thanked Mike for his work maintaining operations during the clerk transition period.
Conners reported on regionalization efforts, including an introductory meeting with officials in Marblehead to discuss successful collaborations like ambulance service. He noted ongoing conversations with Allison about potential near-term and longer-term opportunities for sharing services and resources when there are differences in service levels or staffing between communities. He also met with Colby, the IT director in Danvers who runs the North Shore IT Collaborative, to explore potential IT services. Conners explained the collaborative focuses on maintaining high service levels through better network capabilities and remote support rather than a break-fix model, and he expects pricing details this week for comparison with current services.
Conners and Luddy kicked off the budget process with department heads, with expense budgeting due Friday and salary discussions planned for the following week. This will provide more detailed information than the previous high-level projections on expenses and revenue.
On police department hiring, Conners reported that 28 applications were received for vacant positions, with nine candidates scheduled for interviews that were completed the previous day. He noted there are several good candidates they hope to move through the process quickly for conditional offers. The department is also working through collective bargaining agreement negotiations with additional sessions scheduled. Conners highlighted that Officer Caruso received a commendation from Lieutenant Waters for notifying the department of a person in crisis while off duty, leading to a successful response.
In Community Development, the town is submitting an application to the Land and Water Conservation Fund for rehabilitation of the basketball court at Phillips Park, which could provide up to 50 percent of eligible costs for the FY27 project. They may also seek matching funds from the Community Preservation Committee.
For human resources updates, Conners reported two applicants for the executive assistant position with interviews scheduled, but no responses yet for the assessor position. He noted discussions with Marblehead and other communities about potentially sharing a high-level assessor with full-time clerks in each community for resident support. Six applicants have applied for the assistant town accountant position and are in telephone screening. For the treasurer collector position created by Luddy’s promotion, Conners mentioned having a qualified candidate from the finance director search who expressed interest, and the position was posted the previous day.
Phelan asked about expanding collaboration beyond Marblehead for positions like assessor. Conners explained the importance of similar community composition, citing the successful Lynnfield-Wakefield-Reading assessor arrangement that works due to the assessor’s personality despite different community types. He noted that Victor, the shared assessor, recommended pairing communities with similar housing stock like oceanfront properties and limited commercial development, which is why they focused on Marblehead and potentially Nahant.
Fletcher requested a schedule for police hiring progress. Conners clarified that panel interviews were completed with two candidates identified for advancement to interviews with the chief, himself, and Marianne. He noted the next police academy they could target would be in March, though location might affect timing, and confirmed he would provide ongoing updates. Fletcher asked about hiring police candidates before academy training, similar to fire department practices. Conners said he believed there were opportunities for desk or phone work but would confirm the specifics with the police chief.
Public Comment (Link: 00:20:00 – 00:20:00)
Douglas Thompson opened the public comment period and asked if anyone was present for public comment. No members of the public came forward to speak. Thompson joked about scaring everybody away, then moved on to announce that the next item on the agenda was a public hearing that would be delayed until the next meeting.
Public Hearing Continuation (Link: 00:20:00 – 00:21:00)
Nicholas Conners clarified that the next regular meeting would be February 4th, noting that January 21st would be the Tri Board meeting. Mary Ellen Fletcher asked whether they needed to make a motion to continue the public hearing to that specific date, questioning if their previous motion had specified a date. Conners agreed they should make such a motion.
Fletcher made a motion to extend the public hearing until February 4th, which David Grishman seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Douglas Thompson then moved on to announce the next agenda item, which was a discussion, update, and possible vote on the Pine Street improvement.
Solid Waste Contract Update (Link: 00:21:00 – 01:02:00)
Nicholas Conners introduced the solid waste contract update, explaining that Wayne and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee had been working on this issue since before his arrival. He noted they have Brian from Melrose, who is supported through a DEP grant to assist communities with open contracts this year. Wayne was scheduled to provide an update with the goal of getting feedback and direction from the Select Board.
Wayne began the presentation, noting they last presented to the Select Board in April and had experienced a three-month trash strike before getting started in August. They formed a task force to develop a request for proposal and joined a community cohort with other Massachusetts communities working on contracts during the same period. The task force includes Wayne, Gino, Conners, Mary Ellen Fletcher, Kathy, Mick from SWAC, Eric Schneider from Finance Committee, Natalie Swanstrom from DPW for procurement expertise, Jeff Vaughan from DPH, and Brian. They received an 80-hour in-kind grant from DEP for consulting services.
Wayne outlined several high-level challenges facing the solid waste system. Landfills are closing and trash is being exported out of state, with approximately 90 percent expected to be exported within five years except for two or three remaining incinerators. Haulers are moving to automated systems for safety and profit reasons, as trash hauling is one of the most dangerous professions in the US. This automation threatens the town’s current hybrid pay-as-you-throw operation using 135-gallon carts plus blue bags, as automated trucks cannot easily handle bags alongside containers. Republic is not currently offering the hybrid option with automation.
Recycling contracts have become increasingly sophisticated since 2015, requiring material audits and recycling contamination determination. The town currently has no understanding of its contamination level or recycling stream composition. Wayne suggested exploring commodity price sharing, which requires understanding the proportion and market value of recyclables and what the Materials Recovery Facility might offer in revenue sharing. He also mentioned organics diversion as an area of interest for contractual consideration.
The task force has been meeting every two weeks since August and has prepared a legal analysis of the current contract, highlighting advantageous aspects and areas needing attention for future contracts. They developed sophisticated vendor interview questions researched through the cohort to differentiate between vendors and address town-specific challenges. The committee differentiated between primary services covered under contract and secondary services like household hazardous waste, mattress recycling, bulky pickup, and composting programs that affect costs and residential services.
Wayne reported they received updates from town directors Max and Gino regarding needs for larger community contributors like schools and town buildings to ensure proper sizing beyond 2015 levels. They researched capital expenses for new recycling containers, which represents a significant cost the board will need to discuss. The committee has been working on a skeleton RFP format using examples from other towns through the cohort, ensuring they are not working in isolation. They discussed the importance of material audits and the option of a paid second barrel for frequent users, which would work well with a fully automated system.
Wayne explained the current system uses one container and overflow bags, which has resulted in an 18.4 percent reduction from 2018 levels by 2024. This change in 2020 was critical to the town’s current position, as residential behavior shifted toward more diversion from the waste stream. The bags require manual operation by haulers, but automation threatens to disrupt this hybrid situation. Wayne emphasized the importance of interviewing vendors to understand operational solutions and noted that trash service is exempt from 30B procurement rules, allowing internal interviews and strategic negotiation.
Wayne noted that new thinking will be required, potentially including fees for second 35-gallon containers. He mentioned that many communities have transfer stations, which Swampscott does not have and has not needed due to its small geographic size. After seeing successful trash drop-off operations during the summer, they discussed the possibility of a weekly micro transfer station option paid for through bag fees, though this would require investigation.
Regarding organics, Wayne explained that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee has tried to offer additional solutions and requested more physical locations for public composting bins. However, the current composting program is expensive because hauling costs don’t transfer to Black Earth, the composting company, which costs two to three times more per pound than regular hauling. Other communities have implemented organics diversion through the same vendor that handles their regular contract. Wayne suggested investigating whether rail-carting trash to the Carolinas versus transferring organics locally might offer net savings, particularly given the town’s good control of its waste stream through the 35-gallon container system.
Thompson asked for clarification about composting requiring a second barrel for resident separation, which Wayne confirmed depends on vendor programming and pricing. Wayne noted that Hamilton and Wenham currently contract through Casella for this service, and they are the only communities in the region offering it.
Wayne discussed recycling bins, noting that current unlimited recycling in various self-provided containers would need to change to standardized containers for full automation. Conventional wisdom suggests 60-gallon or 96-gallon carts, with potential savings from reduced hauling fees by moving to every-other-week collection with larger containers. He emphasized this would be a policy decision for the Select Board and suggested getting community feedback on budgetary service levels and allowing adequate re-education time rather than making sudden changes.
Conners added that Republic mentioned Reading and Watertown as examples of communities that switched to 96-gallon containers while maintaining weekly service, spending a full year educating residents during the first year of a five-year contract. Any such change would not be implemented immediately on July 1st but would involve four years of every-other-week pricing with one year of maintaining current high service levels while educating the community.
Phelan asked about state grants for recycling bins. Wayne confirmed that federal grants are not widely available, but private industry grants through the Recycling Partnership have historically offered up to $15 per container, though this program may be phasing out. Brian Walsh, the Municipal Assistance Coordinator, explained that while there are no explicit state grants for recycling carts, the Recycling Dividends program allows cart purchases as eligible expenses, though this would not make a significant dent in costs. The program provides approximately $14,000-$15,000 annually and is currently used for other recycling programs.
Walsh mentioned that grants for drop-off equipment like compactors are typically offered annually, though Swampscott’s lack of a transfer station might make this difficult. Wayne noted that recycling containers cost approximately $60 each at the quantities needed for roughly 5,000 residents, totaling around $300,000. DEP generally recommends communities own their containers rather than having vendors provide them, though financing through vendors is possible.
Conners explained the vendor interview process, noting they plan to interview Republic, Waste Management, Casella, Capital, and Wynn and G Mello Disposal. He mentioned receiving feedback from DPW directors that may affect whether they proceed with Mello. All vendors are moving toward automation, with Republic stating they will not offer five-year contracts with manual collection. The interviews are informational meetings outside 30B procurement rules, allowing direct discussions on price and service to inform the final RFP process.
Thompson asked whether automation would yield lower costs. Conners described it as cost avoidance rather than reduction, noting that while other hauling and tipping costs continue to rise, automation serves as a differentiator. He explained that many communities initially have concerns about losing the personal connection with trash collectors, so they wanted to highlight this change to avoid surprises. Each vendor would handle the education process about requirements for curb placement and spacing, with Lynn serving as a nearby example of automated collection.
Grishman thanked the Solid Waste Advisory Committee for their five years of work and asked about glass removal from the system. Wayne explained that until last year, glass was hauled and sorted at cost, degraded recycling material quality, and often went to landfills. Republic found a place using glass as concrete aggregate, reducing losses compared to landfill tipping fees. Glass cannot be thrown in regular trash as it is a state-banned waste item, and despite being the heaviest recycling component, removing it would be financially beneficial.
Wayne noted this is a common regional problem without state-level assistance. The solution requires working with whoever receives the recycling rather than just the hauler to understand glass disposal methods and ensure proper homes for the material. This information would hopefully be reflected in tipping fees based on audit results showing recycling stream percentages.
Thompson asked about the timing and execution of the material audit Wayne had referenced. Wayne explained the audit involves taking samples of the recycling stream, weighing and categorizing materials into eight to ten different classifications including cardboard, glass, and various types and colors of plastics. The vendor must agree to accept audit numbers before conducting the expensive audit to ensure the financial proposal honors those results.
Conners provided Reading as an example, where they spent $25,000 on an audit that all RFP respondents accepted, though vendors said they would conduct their own analysis during the first two years to verify accuracy. Walsh confirmed the audit is an eligible expense under the Recycling Dividends program, though Wayne noted this uses the same limited funding bucket as other recycling programs.
Walsh explained that Swampscott’s 30 percent contamination rate is unusually high and represents outdated pricing from when recycling economics were different. Under modern pricing mechanisms, this rate would result in paying double to quadruple what other towns pay for contamination. Thompson noted the $25,000 audit cost would be worthwhile to get more accurate numbers and reduce costs.
Phelan questioned the audit’s value if companies are becoming smart to the issue. Wayne explained they currently receive monthly reports showing exactly 30.0000 percent contamination, which is clearly not a real audit. Walsh noted that 30 percent is far above the state average of 10-15 percent, with some communities as low as 5 percent. Without an audit, vendors might not honor the current 30 percent rate in new contracts.
Wayne noted that most communities have contamination penalties in their contracts, along with active employees conducting micro-audits and providing feedback to residents through “oopsie stickers.” Swampscott currently has no such penalties. Conners mentioned discussions about moving this responsibility from public health to DPW due to staffing bandwidth, potentially allowing occasional neighborhood audits or choosing a neighborhood per month for monitoring.
Fletcher asked whether any Commonwealth communities remove glass from solid waste. Walsh explained that while communities don’t explicitly ban glass from single-stream recycling, some like Bedford have effective glass drop-off at transfer stations, which pulls glass from the recycling stream and allows them to sell it for higher value than mixed recycling.
Phelan suggested structuring an RFP to request costs for glass removal services. Conners noted the challenge of physical space at the DPW yard for collection locations. Thompson suggested a monthly glass drop-off similar to metal collection days, with Fletcher noting they already have staff in place for such events. Gino confirmed this could work but emphasized the need for monitoring, as he observed during 12 weeks of recycling management that people try to dispose of non-recyclable items when containers are smaller.
Conners sought high-level direction from the Select Board, stating his initial feedback to Wayne was maintaining the same or better service level while being price-sensitive. He emphasized that the top priority should be reliable service where 99 out of 100 homes have empty barrels at day’s end, noting this is one of the most significant expenses with anticipated increases between current and next fiscal year. He asked for prioritization guidance on whether composting and glass diversion are essential or nice-to-have features.
Phelan responded that she views these options as potential cost-reduction measures rather than extras, asking whether they would help offset costs. She stated that allowing residents to purchase a second barrel should be an automatic consideration. Conners confirmed that Republic supports this approach for fully automated systems, recommending barrels over bags for frequent users, with the understanding that holiday periods and approximately 250 out of 5,000 homes would need special consideration.
Walsh noted that maintaining the pay-as-you-throw program would require an annual fee beyond the initial barrel purchase, praising Swampscott’s 20 percent waste reduction as one of the state’s best over recent years. He mentioned Topsfield’s recent implementation of a similar program with a $175 annual fee for second barrels.
Waste Management Contract Renewal Discussion (Link: 01:02:00 – 01:09:00)
Mary Ellen Fletcher noted that residents are currently buying multiple bags that sit on top of barrels, suggesting that the cost of a second barrel should equal whatever two bags cost, since each barrel holds approximately two bags worth of waste. Wayne agreed they could develop algorithmic numbers to ensure residents pay their fair share for additional service, emphasizing that offering the option is important.
Nicholas Conners sought clarification on the board’s priorities, asking whether composting and glass diversion should be weighed as cost-saving and environmentally advantageous options rather than requirements. Katie Phelan confirmed this approach, stating her perspective focuses on lessening the burden on residents by providing convenient options like purchasing a second barrel instead of buying blue bags, even at additional cost.
Douglas Thompson emphasized that composting and glass diversion should be central to driving down tonnage rather than treated as secondary nice-to-have features. He noted the potential for a second barrel to serve as a compost container, questioning whether this might eliminate the need for a traditional second waste barrel. He stressed the importance of pushing this agenda within negotiations rather than taking the simplest path and adding composting as an afterthought.
Wayne thanked the board for the feedback, explaining they were trying to reset the table and share current knowledge from an advisory standpoint. He indicated they would return with information about opportunities and increase communication frequency over the coming months.
Phelan expressed her personal view that every-other-week recycling would not be advantageous for most residents, believing recycling should remain weekly due to storage limitations in many Swampscott homes. She noted that without garages or storage space, residents already fill large recycling containers weekly. Conners acknowledged that the proposed recycling barrels would be much larger than current trash barrels, and Wayne noted that hauling represents the most expensive part of the contract, making cost reduction opportunities significant and potentially offsetting the $300,000 capital cost for new containers.
Fletcher requested a timeline showing deadlines and benchmarks, noting they were already in January with the current contract ending in June. Grishman asked what happens on July 1st if service ends or if they roll over month-to-month. Conners explained that Republic is interested in staying and has expressed preference for signing another five-year contract, making this an ongoing discussion. He joked about having Gino handle waste collection again.
Conners suggested providing a calendar in future board packets so members would have timeline information even without in-depth discussions, and planned to return with the advisory committee later. Fletcher informed the public that the Solid Waste Advisory Committee meets monthly with public comment opportunities, and Wayne provided the email address swac@swampscott.com for community questions. The board thanked Wayne and Brian Walsh for their presentation before moving on to discuss Pine Street improvements.
Pine Street Improvements and Veterans Crossing Development (Link: 01:09:00 – 01:46:00)
Nicholas Conners framed the discussion by explaining they have had ongoing discussions with Gino, Marzi, DPW team consultants, and B’Nai B’Rith Housing regarding conditions for the ZBA’s potential approval of the Veterans Crossing development. The situation had been shifting from the previous week, and he wanted to provide an update so the board would be informed. He noted this was an informational update rather than requiring board action.
Douglas Thompson asked Marzi to provide context on the ZBA process and overall timeline. Marzi acknowledged the presence of B’Nai B’Rith team members Susan Gittleman (executive director), Yara Verges (project manager), and Holly Grace. She explained that B’Nai B’Rith submitted a comprehensive permit application to the ZBA for 41 units of affordable housing at Pine Street called Veterans Crossing. The process began August 22nd with the first public meeting on September 16th. The ZBA retained consultants to assist with the comprehensive permit process, which is regulated by state statute requiring completion within 180 days of opening, with an additional 40 days to render a decision.
Marzi reported that five ZBA meetings have been held, with the 180-day deadline expiring February 18th and a decision required by March 30th. The town retained Vicki Massone as a peer consultant with Gino’s assistance to review engineering work, with the developer paying review fees. Massone, a former town employee, has institutional knowledge about area infrastructure. At the last ZBA meeting, concerns arose about culvert replacement required for project construction.
The town worked with B’Nai B’Rith Housing to secure $750,000 in grant funding through the state’s One Stop program for culvert relocation. Engineering estimates came in around $750,000, with the total project cost reaching $758,000 including contingencies, engineering fees, remediation work, and professional services. The ZBA wanted assurance of sufficient funding and clarification about responsibility for cost overruns, leading to internal discussions about funding adequacy.
Marzi noted they allocated approximately $123,000 in contingency fees as part of the grant application and felt confident about sufficient funding. The developer stated they could contribute additional funding, and this week they committed to up to $100,000 in additional funding as contingency or match for potential cost overruns. The next ZBA meeting is scheduled for January 20th.
Thompson asked whether a board vote was necessary, which Conners confirmed was not required. Thompson then asked about the initial agreements regarding responsibility for this expense. Marzi explained that culvert relocation was not part of the original land disposition agreement or lease because the initial four-story structure had different massing and the culvert impact may not have been fully understood. As the project advanced and was redesigned to three stories, the culvert impact increased, requiring relocation.
Conners explained that when they were considering an MOU versus making it a condition of the permit, they wanted the ability to vote if necessary for clear direction. He mentioned the chair had previously suggested designating two members for final review on similar matters, but this was no longer necessary since they were discussing it as a permit condition. This approach provides more certainty to the ZBA that staff are tracking compliance through the building permit process, with Community Development and Rich’s team maintaining close contact to ensure conditions are met before proceeding.
Thompson asked whether costs could theoretically reach one million dollars, making the contingency and $100,000 insufficient. Conners acknowledged this was theoretically possible but noted they have conservative engineering estimates reviewed by peer reviewers, with both the development team and staff confident they are on target. He emphasized they have peer review, outside consultants, and internal team review, which represents standard due diligence for development projects.
Gino explained there would be a bidding process, so definitive costs won’t be known until bid prices are received. However, he expressed confidence they would come in at or below the estimate because Hancock, who prepared the estimate, was conservative and built in contingencies, plus they now have an additional $100,000. The town will oversee the project since the grant came to them.
Mary Ellen Fletcher asked whether ZBA involvement in project finances was normal, noting she didn’t recall similar issues with the Westcott or other projects. Marzi said she had not experienced this previously, though ZBAs might request infrastructure changes that impact projects. Gino noted that for the Avery project on Essex Street, the ZBA required the developer to provide $50,000 for area improvements at the town’s discretion, which the developer agreed to. He also mentioned that for the Concordia project, the ZBA asked Paradise for additional money to beautify sidewalks with landscaping.
Fletcher noted this situation was different because they were discussing an MOU when an LDA and ground lease were already signed. Danielle Leonard, as ZBA liaison, clarified that when she spoke with ZBA Chair Heather Roman, she didn’t believe Roman was requesting an MOU but rather seeking assurance about funding sources for potential overages as part of due diligence. Leonard felt Roman was being thorough rather than demanding specific documentation.
Conners agreed that Roman wasn’t forcing the MOU issue, noting it was one option considered before moving to the permit condition approach. Fletcher expressed concern about timing, noting funding rounds start at the end of February or March, and questioned whether a March 30th ZBA decision would risk missing the first funding round.
Marzi explained they had been working between ZBA meetings with the project team, town staff, and peer reviewers to address outstanding issues identified during meetings. She felt most ZBA concerns had been addressed coming into the January meeting, and they had a productive meeting the previous Friday with the engineering team providing additional requested backup data.
Leonard confirmed her lengthy Sunday discussion with Roman, stating she didn’t get the impression of significant delays or difficulties. They discussed the culvert relocation and water line size increases, which had also been discussed with B’Nai B’Rith and zoning. Leonard felt there were no significant concerns that would cause delays and offered to reach out to Roman again to facilitate the process.
Fletcher asked about expediting the process. Marzi explained that while the public hearing must close by February 18th, the March deadline allows time for the ZBA to issue its decision. Since this is a large project, writing the decision could take time, but the chairperson authorized the consultant to work with the developer’s attorney to prepare factual information and project details in advance, allowing both parties to agree on facts and expedite the decision issuance.
Holly Grace from B’Nai B’Rith Housing thanked Conners and Marzi for facilitating their attendance and the board’s time. She noted the project has positive momentum in both permitting and financing. They are comfortable with having a comprehensive permit decision include their commitment to fund up to $100,000 in culvert work overruns among other conditions. They prefer their existing land development agreement to remain their guiding document with the town and expressed gratitude for the partnership opportunity.
Grace explained the timing challenge, noting the state funding deadline for the upcoming round is March 13th, requiring submission of a full application including final approvals. In December, they submitted a pre-application to the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities and have not heard back about eligibility to submit a full application. They are proceeding as if they will be eligible and permits will be in place by the deadline, hoping to have a draft decision the ZBA could vote on if comfortable.
Thompson asked whether they really need a full ZBA decision before the mid-March deadline. Grace explained that having zoning permits in place and finalized is a threshold condition, as the funding round is highly competitive among developments across the state. Readiness to proceed is a strong state criteria, so proving they have their comprehensive permit in place, expiration of appeals periods, and filing with the town clerk are important for demonstrating they can close and begin construction quickly upon receiving financing.
Thompson questioned whether all steps including appeals periods needed completion by mid-March, noting this seemed impossible. Grace acknowledged this has been challenging but noted Marzi’s dates represent outside limits, and they’ve discussed the possibility of special ZBA meetings outside the typical monthly schedule, with the board seeming open to this approach. They are working with optimism and pragmatism hoping to compete in this year’s funding round.
Grishman asked about the next funding round if they miss the March 13, 2026 deadline. Grace explained the state funding round is a yearly process typically issued in February, happening later this year in March. The state sometimes has “high readiness” rounds for special projects at their discretion, but it’s unclear whether they would qualify. The answer could be that it might be a year before the next opportunity.
Grishman sought clarification that while the normal round is yearly, there’s potential for other rounds requiring specific invitations. Grace confirmed that every round has a pre-application screening process, and developers are invited into rounds based on the state’s analysis of pre-applications.
Fletcher summarized that Grace was in communication with the ZBA, which is open to additional meetings to accelerate the process, with no major hiccups but a tight schedule. Thompson sought clarification on the appeal timeframe, which Marzi confirmed is 20 days from when the decision is filed with the town clerk, not from the vote date.
Thompson questioned whether the detailed decision would be available the morning after the vote. Conners explained that if the ZBA approves the final decision they are currently working on with both the developer’s attorney and the town’s consultant, the clock starts when filed with the town clerk, likely the morning after completion rather than immediately after an evening vote. Marzi noted the decision could be ready quickly because they’ve identified contingencies and issues, created a chart for plugging items into the decision, and are addressing most issues outside the ZBA process to minimize contingencies.
Fletcher asked whether Heather Roman indicated they could finish by January 15th. Conners cautioned that this is within ZBA control and their responsibility, noting they’ve been good partners in prioritizing and identifying issues for resolution. He emphasized recognizing this as part of what the ZBA does on behalf of the town.
Fletcher stressed the importance of understanding timelines so the public can follow the process, noting it’s tight but expressing appreciation for the hardworking ZBA. Leonard offered to reach out to Roman again to facilitate the process and remind her of B’Nai B’Rith’s deadlines, emphasizing this shouldn’t become political since it’s a decided project they’re moving forward with. She felt Roman and the ZBA would come through with their due diligence.
Thompson returned to questioning why the major culvert expense wasn’t addressed in the LDA, asking what they would have done without the $750,000 grant since this was a known requirement. Marzi explained this is a project cost, noting the Commonwealth has several infrastructure assistance programs that encourage affordable housing development. The One Stop program assists with infrastructure improvements for affordable housing, and when funding became available, they collaborated with B’Nai B’Rith on the application to assist the expensive affordable housing project given current construction costs and site conditions.
Thompson pressed the point about assuming they would receive the grant, noting it was “luckily” funded. Conners acknowledged the concern about moving forward without addressing this in the LDA, stating that for future projects, it’s incumbent upon him and staff to account for all such expenses to avoid having an LDA without funding sources identified. In this case, they did receive the grant and have money to proceed, but he committed to ensuring future projects address funding sources in the LDA.
Leonard acknowledged this was their oversight since Conners wasn’t present during the original process, questioning whether they missed something or if the design simply changed. Thompson noted they approved the current design, making this more than just a design change issue.
Grishman asked about a similar Boynton project that qualified for grants. Gino clarified they applied for but did not receive that grant. Marzi noted there’s another funding round they’ve started discussing to secure funding for water line work in the neighborhood to support the development, with that round opening later in January.
Leonard confirmed this was a ZBA consideration, with Roman expressing concern about the waterline situation in discussions with B’Nai B’Rith. Grace confirmed the peer reviewer has focused on all neighborhood infrastructure including sewer, water, culvert, and stormwater under very thorough and detailed review, with them responding and providing more information to ensure both the reviewer and Gino feel comfortable.
Grishman suggested quarterly updates on grant application outcomes since they currently see applications on consent agendas but not results. Marzi agreed to provide updates on both successful and unsuccessful grant applications.
Thompson expressed hope the project comes in within $850,000, noting uncertainty about what happens if costs exceed that amount. He was most comforted by Gino’s mention of an estimate provider, inferring they might be a potential bidder, which could indicate the estimate’s accuracy. However, he remained concerned about what would happen if costs come in higher than expected. Fletcher simply noted they would have to deal with such a situation if it arose.
Special Municipal Employee Designations (Link: 01:46:00 – 01:50:00)
Douglas Thompson introduced the agenda item to review, discuss, and potentially vote on special municipal employee designations. Nicholas Conners explained that this discussion arose when they initially looked at adding Mr. Schutzer to the Housing Authority, which involved back-and-forth discussion with town counsel. He noted that the Housing Authority is already handled by statute as a special municipal employee.
Conners explained he left this item on the agenda because it was highlighted by KP that they had no records in the clerk’s office of such designations, though many communities have them where the Select Board designates committees as special municipal employees due to the expertise and professional experience their membership typically requires. The designation provides more flexibility under conflict laws, still requiring disclosure but allowing someone to represent clients for a fee before different town committees, which is currently prohibited for non-designated members.
Conners clarified that special municipal employees are designated by role, position, or committee rather than by individual, contrary to the original thought regarding Mr. Schutzer and the Housing Authority. He suggested starting with Planning, Conservation, and ZBA, with the possibility of adding others in the future. These committees typically have professionals in relevant fields who serve their community and may occasionally represent clients before other municipalities or even locally in the course of their business. Currently, such members would need to recuse themselves or avoid working with those clients, but this designation would provide flexibility while still requiring disclosure.
David Grishman asked whether they had received requests from sitting members or applicants of these committees for such designation. Conners responded that they had not received any requests to date. He explained that the idea, discussed with KP, was to avoid potential future issues if there were vacancies, candidates wanting to run, or appointees who work professionally in the field with municipalities regularly. This represents a proactive approach to prepare for the future.
Conners noted they would keep this designation on record in the clerk’s office, as it could have been done 35 years ago with records simply lost. Mike had searched extensively to try to avoid having to create this designation. The goal is avoiding potential future issues while hopefully broadening the field of residents who may be interested in serving, as those familiar with conflict laws may have chosen not to volunteer in the past.
Thompson sought clarification on two separate categories. He confirmed that Mr. Schutzer for the Housing Authority was already categorized appropriately and would be handled on the consent agenda, not this agenda item. Conners confirmed this was correct. Thompson then noted that the current item dealt with recommendations to add the Board of Assessors, Board of Health, ZBA, CPC, Capital Improvement Committee, Recreation Committee, Historical Commission, and Historic District Commission as special municipal employees.
Conners confirmed this was the exhaustive list and emphasized it was the board’s policy decision to make, noting they didn’t need to act that evening. He described it as a best practice that would position them to allow future volunteers to be appointed or elected to those roles. Grishman asked whether the recommendation aligned with Tom Mc, and Conners confirmed they wanted the record available so they could immediately point to the January 7th action and the additional flexibility it provides for service.
Grishman stated he was fine moving forward with the recommendation, which Thompson treated as a motion. Danielle Leonard seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. Conners then moved to the next agenda item regarding potential legal services.
Legal Services RFP Discussion (Link: 01:50:00 – 01:55:00)
Nicholas Conners explained that legal services, like solid waste, are outside of 30B procurement strictures, allowing for advance discussions. He had spoken to two firms to gauge capacity if they were to go through a formal process that would mirror an RFP but not be subject to normal 30B requirements. Both firms expressed interest, and he had alerted Tom that this discussion was taking place so KP was aware it had been discussed at the end of the last board meeting and would be discussed in detail that evening.
Conners recommended moving forward by putting together an RFP that he could share with the group for feedback and future discussion. The process would request both service proposals and price proposals, looking at qualifications through a request for qualifications and price proposal format. The request for qualifications would form the basis for an interview process that he envisioned as two rounds.
The first round would include a handful of department heads, hopefully the moderator, and a couple of committee chairs to provide multiple points of view. Based on his experience in Milton, these interviews would run about 90 minutes each, compared to the tighter 50-60 minutes the Select Board typically conducts with respondents. This would allow for frank discussions where ZBA Chair Heather Roman might explain how they operate with outside consultants or attorneys, helping inform the process beyond just the request for qualifications.
Following the first round, they would present a recommendation to the board. If there were five respondents, they might narrow the field, but if only three responded, all three might come before the board. The Select Board would then interview the final 2-4 candidates, depending on the number of respondents, allowing for public interviews before making the final decision on town counsel appointment.
Conners emphasized he wanted explicit board agreement that they were exploring this option, noting it might result in keeping their current counsel. He explained that after interviewing multiple firms, they might conclude their current counsel is who they want, or they might select someone else. He wanted to ensure everyone understood they were moving forward with this process with eyes wide open, rather than reaching the point of having candidates before the board and questioning why they were exploring alternatives to their current positive experience.
Conners added that he had spoken to several municipal administrators in the area and was looking at the Massachusetts Municipal Law Association. He planned to reach out to additional firms that represent multiple towns, seeking options beyond the sole practitioner model to include firms with expertise in land use, contracts, and similar areas. The goal was to evaluate both large and smaller firms that could provide comprehensive services rather than relying on a single individual, which is the case in some nearby communities.
David Grishman made a motion to accept the Town Administrator’s recommendation to put together an RFQ for further discussion, asking for service and price proposals for town legal services. Danielle Leonard seconded the motion. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously.
Douglas Thompson asked whether there was anything more on controlling legal expenses that Conners wanted to discuss. Conners replied that this would be built into the price proposal. Thompson asked about short-term suggestions, and Conners explained he had spoken to department heads about ensuring requests go through him, and Tom was ensuring that any requests not going through him come back through him. He felt they had a good handle on what was coming and going, understanding the need to narrow spending and committing to work toward that goal.
Recreational Land Tax Treatment Approval (Link: 01:55:00 – 01:57:00)
Douglas Thompson introduced the agenda item for discussion and possible vote approving the current language of H3917, recreational land tax treatment. Nicholas Conners confirmed this was related to the golf course issue and explained it was home rule work done at town meeting prior to his arrival. The bill is now in committee for third reading in the legislature.
Conners reported that Representative Armini’s office contacted them because of how the bill was drafted and voted upon. They requested a procedural vote attested to by the board with a raised stamp from Mike in the clerk’s office to ensure the bill can continue moving forward. He explained this was a procedural move requested by the legislative committee, with no substantive changes made to the bill. The issue was that the legislature’s counsel’s office was not satisfied with the original drafting.
Thompson sought confirmation that there were no substantive changes to the bill. Conners stated he did not believe there were any. Mary Ellen Fletcher noted that there could not be substantive changes since it was voted at town meeting. Conners explained that in a more perfectly drafted document, there would have been wording allowing the board to approve any substantive changes. However, he clarified this was not about substantive changes – the legislature wanted to ensure the board supported the decision as drafted, since they lacked comfort that the board was behind it.
Thompson confirmed they were simply providing their stamp of approval. A motion was made and seconded, and with no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. Conners then indicated they would move on to the consent agenda.
Consent Agenda and Meeting Conclusion (Link: 01:57:00 – 02:00:00)
Douglas Thompson confirmed they were moving to the consent agenda. Mary Ellen Fletcher requested that the minutes be pulled and placed on the next meeting agenda. She also asked for clarification about an email they received before the meeting regarding whether they needed to vote as a roll call vote.
Nicholas Conners explained that the question was whether a roll call vote was needed for the Housing Authority appointment. He had spoken with both the Housing Authority chair and Executive Director Kevin Johnson, who confirmed that if the Select Board is not timely notified in writing, they can vote and appoint alone without a joint meeting with the Housing Authority. The Executive Director did not recall ever providing timely written notification to the Select Board, and the chair confirmed the same. Since the position had been vacant for quite a while with no movement until late November or December when discussions began about both a qualified tenant representative and Mr. Schutzer, they had missed the 30-day window, allowing the Select Board to make the appointment legally on their own.
David Grishman added that the Housing Authority had affirmed this decision at their last two meetings. He had spoken with Mr. Patzios, the Housing Authority chair, that evening before the meeting, who confirmed full support for Ms. Russo, whom they had already appointed, and Mr. Schutzer, with no reconsideration. Conners confirmed that counsel had been consulted and because they missed the 30-day window, the Select Board could vote alone without conjunction with the Housing Authority.
Grishman made a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended, which Danielle Leonard seconded. The motion was approved unanimously. Thompson noted for the record that they had reached the two-hour mark for the meeting.
Fletcher offered Select Board comments, thanking Nate Beisheim, Danielle Balinski, and Joe Dulet for televising the meeting. She also congratulated Planning Board Chair Ted Dooley and his family, Nicole Dooley and Jack Dooley, on the arrival of their new daughter Merritt Dooley on January 4th in the middle of the afternoon. Fletcher noted the name sounded like Mary Dooley and suggested she might be named after the new commodore at the yacht club, possibly Merry Webster.
Thompson commented that Fletcher’s remarks were getting very local and personal. Leonard and Conners indicated they had no additional comments. Fletcher made a motion to adjourn, which was seconded and approved unanimously.
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.