Fisherman's and a Quarry

Swampscott's getting $100,000 to fix parts of the beach along Humphrey street, via the state's budget, due in large part from a lot of hard work coming from our elected leaders representing this town.

The Governor vetoed $50,000 of the funds originally set for Swampscott, which would have totaled $150,000, but it's still going to make for a lot of improvements along our portion of the beach. The remaining $50,000 could be reinserted to the budget if the State Legislature is able to override the Governor's veto, which is a definite possibility.

There's a lot more work to be done in terms of state funding for the town, especially Chapter 70, but it's good to know we have strong leadership fighting for our interests every day.

Labels: town news, town politics, town projects

Amazingly, Town Meeting accomplished all of its goals tonight, even if some of them were altered. Most of the night consisted of routine tasks that require votes every year and move quickly, but there were a few highlights for the night.

• Capital Expenditures: these are bonds that Town Meeting approves which don't require a Proposition 2 1/2 override. They have to be paid in ten years time, accrue interest mounted to the debt and are typically meant for minor and medium projects such as road repairs and new town vehicles. This year, there will be one new police car, a new roof for Clark, as well as some radios of the non FM variety for Police and Fire. Overall, Swampscott agreed to take on nearly $2 million more in debt of this variety.
  
• Debt Exclusions: a fairly new phenomenon in Mass Municipalities, this is the process of proposing one-time fees to voters that they can approve at the ballot box to fund specific projects, instead of creating the less transparent and more expensive Capital Expenditures. Taxes go up for one year to pay for the project(s), then they go back down the next. A brand-new concept for Swampscott, it truly harkens back to the days of early Colonial America, when New Englanders paid for things as they were needed. If a town needed a new bridge, for example, Town Meeting would assemble and vote on it. If it passed, a levy would be created to specifically pay for the project over the next year or two. After the project was paid for, the levy would end. When the British Government tried to move away from that system, the American Revolution began. [See Boston Tea Party.]
  
  Obviously, the scale of operating society today is different - but the idea of having an election to raise local revenue for necessary expenditures on a one or two year basis, instead of issuing a bond and leaving it for future generations, is a noble one - not to mention both more democratic and transparent.
  
  This year, assuming the Board of Selectmen approve the question, voters will be given the chance to vote for a one-time fee as part of their taxes that would cover a new fire engine, replacing the Fire Department's 1988 classic, as well as repave 12 of the worst roads across town. Town Meeting will pay for both either way, but if voters approve the Debt Exclusion, they'll save over $200,000 compared to paying for those items using bonds. The roads will collectively cost $150k and the Fire Truck $300k, costing the average voter an additional one-time fee of $58 in their property taxes, the savings of over $200,000 comes from not having to pay the interest on unnecessary bonds.
  
  Editorial Note: Several Selectmen were afraid Debt Exclusions would be too confusing for voters -would it be seen as an override? And, if it would, would it prevent voters from approving the real override that will come either next year or the one after? Of course, that's a low opinion of voters given the fact that the Fire Truck will cost a one-time fee of $58 next year if passed at the ballot, or far more if they don't.
  
  Instead of taking leadership on educating voters about the simplicity and transparency of this new process, several Selectmen sheepishly argued to just make them Capital Expenditures, the money savings be damned. That's a funny comment coming from that group, all of whom talk about being "creative" in looking for ways to save money. Isn't this a creative solution that at least merits a try? Selectmen should know all people want is a transparent government - to know where their money is going. Capital Expenditures is the antithesis to that: it's exactly the kind of thing people don't like about government. They're less transparent. They're debt towns will pay for a decade later and, in the long run, they cost way more money than paying for them up front. People don't have the chance to approve Capital Expenditures and often questionable items are included (such as text books). Convincing people there's a better way won't be difficult, but it will take leadership that the Board of Selectmen will have to grow into - to put it nicely.
  
• The Town Building Oversight Committee. The night's second big event was approving the Town Building Oversight Committee's creation, discussed in yesterday's blog. Thankfully, a compromise was reached before Town Meeting's second night began. The Selectmen gave up the rights to make the committee an Advisory Committee in exchange for defining how the Committee will be comprised - which will include 7 members, one of which will come from the Town Finance Committee, the Board of Selectmen and the current Town Building Review Committee. Other members will be residents appointed by the Moderator and Selectmen. This committee will have authority to propose guidelines for what can be developed and built on the old Middle School, the Phillips Beach Ave Fire Station, the former Sr. Center and the Sewage Pumping Station on Highland Ave. A report on their findings is due no later than Nov. 15th, at which point Town Meeting reconvenes to take action.
• My Final Note: Voters should insist on being involved in the building oversight process. Go to the public meetings; its imperative committee members know how residents feel, making those the #1 priorities, even beyond land value and future property tax receipts. For most residents, surprising would be putting it mildly at just the taste of what could come given the Building Review Committee's report last night. Picture more than 40 units of luxury living on the old Temple Grounds, comprising at least four stories, or the core of the old Middle School's demolish in favor of two structures on the same property, with even more units than the Temple. Not pretty at all.
  
  Especially in this soft residential market, Swampscott could use more commercial base - not residential. Wouldn't it make sense to at least explore the option of turning the old Temple site into quiet office space - after all, that couldn't be any busier thanTown Hall, located there for the past year. Office space will certainly be less busy than the former Temple.
  
  None of this is to say the Review Committee's report didn't show promising results of what's to come - indeed, it was downright optimistic. One of their suggestions, for example, was to promote the idea of trimming the old Middle School back to it's historical original, a stunningly beautiful building. It may be too small for what developers would want, but definitely is the basis for a project Swampscott residents could be proud of.
  
  The committee's best idea was to expand the use of our town's pumping station. Specifically, land could be cleared to add space for parking and Whale's Beach access, as well as a new police station. The best part is it collectively represents a strategy for improving Swampscott's downtown - highlighting Swampscott's connection to the beach. It could do the nearly moribund downtown a great deal of good, making the area somewhere Swampscott residents congregate, at least in warm weather.
  
  However, all of the good ideas make it even more imperative that residents become involved (even good ideas can fail). The night's common theme among speakers: once these buildings are sold and changes made, there's no going back. This is a once-in-a-generation question for town residents; most communities wish they were this property rich, with options and tools to combat the difficult problems that arise. Town Meeting members in large numbers concur that it's important Swampscott consider what could happen in the future before we make rash decisions now, hence the creation of the new committee. But the answers to these questions don't rest solely in the members who will be appointed to the Building Oversight Committee. The answers come collectively, from town residents being engaged in the process and making sure the committee does right by the people of this town. If we don't become engaged, we'll get what we deserve - and the town may very well be worse off than we are now.
  

Labels: schools, Swampscott, taxes, town meeting, town politics

Here's a rundown of the first night of Swampscott's Town Meeting. Tune in for tomorrow's installments here as well.

• First up, the moderated opened Town Meeting. New members (including me) were sworn in. A reverend from one of Swampscott's churches lead us in prayer (why we need to ask Jesus to bless us, I don't know, but I found the whole "tradition" offensive). Representative Lori Ehrlich came to thank the town, as well as quickly discuss some of the things she's done while in office (including $350,000 for Humphrey Street - if it gets through the Senate). Various town committees reported on their year's work, some details below.
• The K-8 Master Plan. Quick run through by the Committee's chair. Readers will note I recently discussed the Master Plan on this website. The only news is that the committee suggested the Grade-Level 1 option, which would turn Clark into a Pre-K/K building and house grades 1-4 at Stanley. Editorialized Comments: They're selling it as a means to increase "parity," which is silly given the overall quality of Swampscott's elementary schools (among the best in the state - all of them). "Parity" is really a creative disguise to save money, at the cost of Swampscott's K-4 educational quality.
  
  Ultimately, all of Swampscott's elementary schools excel at teaching kids - the only disparity that exists are the kids who get the teachers who are right for them, versus the ones who don't - and that kind of disparity would continue to exist at whatever new schools we build. Smaller schools have been proven just as important as smaller class sizes in the K-4 age group, which makes a lot of sense when looking at Swampscott's MCAS scores. With Swampscott's elementary education system among the best in the state, why destroy the neighborhood-school model? It can only dampen the educational standards, whether or not the buildings our kids use are shiny and new.
  
• Bylaws. The town's committee on updating the bylaws attempted to do two things: fix what they suggested were 'inconsistencies' and 'typos' in the town's bylaws, as well as offering a motion to change the bylaws to insert a clause that would force town citizens to shovel sidewalks.
  
• The first amendment - which promised to be a quick exercise - proved to be much more daunting than it looked. Yes, the committee fixed typos and inconsistencies in the bylaws, but they also changed certain aspects of the bylaws that went above and beyond the committee's purview. The worst offender was a change in fees for violating certain town codes - which originally were to be 'no more than $50,' but would have become 'no less than $50' - for each offense. Under state law, that would mean that the town could penalize people up to $300 for each offense if those codes were violated. An amendment passed which would make each violation be exactly $50 per offense.
  
• The second amendment, on snow removal, was effectively killed. Proponents wanted to make sure town sidewalks were properly shoveled, opponents said that the change was unfair because not everyone is physically equipped to shovel and can't afford the unfunded mandate of paying for the walkways to be cleared. The Committee Chair also said that the town technically owns the sidewalks and referenced the fact that in other towns, the town itself pays to clear major sidewalks, especially those on busy streets and streets used by kids walking to and from school.
  
• Buildings. The committee reporting on what to do with the town's many properties gave focused on several buildings: the Phillips Beach Fire Station (currently used as the town's ambulance service), the Humphrey Street pumping station and the current police station. Its suggestion was to sell the Phillips Beach Fire Station, use the Humphrey Street property for a new police station and to lease out the current police station as the new town ambulance service, conveniently located next to the fire department. Additionally, it was recommended that the old middle school be sold.
  
• The Night's Wrap Up. On the whole, there was little contention over the sale and reuse of the town's buildings, but the night ended on a heated exchange when the building committee suggested the creation of a new committee to have oversight of how the buildings could be sold - including the creation of new town bylaws that would be up for approval by Town Meeting, likely in the fall.
  
  Several Selectman came out against the proposal, insisting they retain the oversight of those matters. Instead, they offered an amendment to create an advisory committee instead. Multiple people spoke out in favor of both options and the crowd went back and forth, however momentum in the crowd seemed to shift when one of the building committee members came out and said their process was necessary to avoid another Temple scenario - where the town purchased only a part of the old Temple property, when members of Town Meeting thought the entirety was purchased. Given the applause in the crowd, it seemed Selectmen's amendment would fail and an Oversight committee would be created, but the Town Selectmen were given a reprieve because, as the clock turned to 10:46, people were anxious to leave and voted to table the decision for Tuesday Night.
  
• My Final Comments: There was some dispute as to whether or not the Selectmen must come back to Town Meeting before a sale could be finalized, but it makes more sense to create an independent authority to come up with suggestions for town meeting (read: the Oversight Committee). The Selectmen would still be given great weight in the process, since they'd be the people selecting who would serve on that committee, but ultimately they wouldn't be able to steamroll a decision on the town.
  
  Given the language in the Town Meeting Warrant of the sections on actually selling the buildings in question, there was nothing to assure that the Selectmen be forced to come back to Town Meeting before a sale was finalized - as they tried to say there was. Furthermore, even if they did come back, what's to prevent them from still steamrolling their wishes since they could essentially suggest Town Meeting sell the buildings as they see fit, or else they'll lose the deal negotiated by the Selectmen. It's better to set the conditions to those deals first, so that tactic can't work, because these significant properties ultimately impact the character of Swampscott.
  
  This could be especially important for the Old Middle School, which is well over a hundred years old and represents the highest point of town. Residents can easily see it from as far away as the hills by the old Machon. Elected leaders, professional athletes, actors and CEOs have come out of that building in its 100+ years of existence, so it's only right that the citizens of this town have some more say in how it - and all of the other town property in question - can be sold.

Finally, if Town Meeting is extended to Wednesday (even though we were repeatedly told we'd finish by Tuesday night, that's not going to happen), I won't be able to go given the fact that I previously agreed to a job interview, meaning I won't be able to give a report. If any Town Meeting members will give their own rundown on Wednesday's happenings, let me know. I'll be delighted to post it! Town Meeting is exceptionally important - and rarely covered in the Reporter - so it takes true Citizen Journalism to make sure people have access to what's really going on.

Labels: bylaws, lori erhlich, schools, Swampscott, town meeting, town politics

The town dems are having a potluck for new members (me included) on Sunday at 6pm. If anyone's interesting in joining the town committee, this would be a good time to meet everyone and see what it's all about. Plus, it's good to be a part of the community. I know this is short notice, but if anyone would like to come, email me over the next day or so and I'll forward your name and number to the hosts.

Labels: Swampscott, town dems, town politics

I can't believe it.

Then again, I probably can.

“My job is becoming more and more demanding,” he said of his position as president and CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. “I don’t believe in walking away from a job half done, but I don’t feel I can throw myself as fully into this task as it requires.”

No doubt he's busy. Good on him for not committing to more than he could handle.

However, that leaves two incumbents not running for reelection - and a third who is apparently thinking of leaving the board as well.

In a nod to Town Administrator Andrew Maylor and possible sign of things to come, Paster added, “I believe we have one of the best financial teams in this state, led by Mr. Maylor. If for some reason I choose not be a selectman after this year is over, I know I’ll leave the town in good hands.”

Imagine, Swampscott without a prominent Paster?

Labels: town politics