SWAMPSCOTT — The Finance Committee met on Wednesday evening to discuss the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) Post and 84 Pine Street, with the aim of clearing up confusion on the matter and beginning to get on a proper track to completion.
During the meeting, Chair Eric Hartmann took a moment to get the committee up to speed on the timeline of events that have unfolded since the town originally first set out to purchase the property in hopes of opening a constructive dialogue on a clear path forward.
Hartmann noted that after the RFP (Request for Proposal) was made public. “The original plan was to develop the property that we just bought, plus the VFW property, knock everything down and build a new building on that combined space, which would include a new canteen or VFW Hall,” he said.
He cited that it was later determined that the developers could not include the VFW canteen and still make the property economically viable.
“The way I read the town warrant article that we voted on in May 2023, and I know there may be disagreements about this, but the way I read this was that there was a VFW Post required in the development,” committee member Tara Myslinski said.
Myslinski added that she remembered seeing the veterans’ support for the project at Town Meeting due to the addition of a post. “The RFP, the way I read that, there’s a post in the development. My understanding was that this included a post,” she said.
“But there’s very little information out there about how it became ‘not a post’, so I have a bunch of concerns, legally and procedurally,” Myslinski said.
Hartmann cited the article language for the project. “It says ‘for affordable housing with preference for veterans, and inclusion of a VFW post,’” Hartmann said.
Director of Finance and Administration Amy Sarro noted that the ARPA funding used to help purchase the property was contingent on it being for affordable housing.
“I don’t buy it,” Myslinski said. “I don’t buy that this hasn’t happened in other places and that there isn’t guidance out there helping people use these ARPA funds if some contingencies fall through.” She said she thinks the committee needs to look further into the matter going forward.
She said she thinks that they need a definitive opinion from the federal government on the matter, citing the need for more flexibility. “If we have a contract, and if the contract doesn’t follow the RFP, or the authority the town gave the Select Board, and it’s void, there has to be some flexibility,” Myslinski said. “We need to figure this out.”
When the committee discussed possible outcomes of the project, Myslinski expressed her reservations about what was ahead. “I see the town getting sued. I see the developer getting sued by the veterans,” she said. “The contract being invalidated, because the Select Board had no authority to do it,” citing that it was her understanding that a post had to be included in the redevelopment.
Select Board Chair MaryEllen Fletcher responded to Myslinski’s claims. “The Select Board did contact the town’s legal counsel, and it has said to the board, in writing, that the board is in their purview of everything that the board has done so far,” Fletcher said. “We reached out to the town’s legal counsel, and everything we’ve done was within their recommendations.”
