SWAMPSCOTT — The Finance Committee gathered Monday evening to discuss the uncertain fate of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Post 1240 on Pine Street.
Lately, it has been a central theme of discussion for the town, with the town having arrived at a crossroads on how the project will continue. The original proposal by B’nai Brith Housing included the development of 41-unit housing for seniors with a veteran’s preference. After further discussion, the board presented two different amended versions to the developer.
One version saw the VFW Post included in the housing unit. The other amended version saw the Post relocated, where it would be moved 600 ft. beside the new units to another parcel of land owned by the town.
Then, Finance Committee member Katie Arrington put forth a petition signed by over 300 residents, calling for a Special Town Meeting regarding the possible relocation of the VFW Post. Previously, Arrington had filed a petition the first time, but the first petition did not actually call for a Special Town Meeting.
“This is a complicated issue, with a lot of unknowns around the project, many of those exist with or without the citizen’s petition,” Committee Chair Eric Hartmann said. “There’s really many ways that this could go one way or the other.”
According to Director of Finance and Administration Amy Sarro, the Land Development Agreement (LDA) and the contract have both been executed, but there are still conditions that need to be met.
Hartmann opened up a discussion on the matter with the hope of analyzing different scenarios of the issue and the possible financial ramifications on the town. In preparation for the Special Town Meeting, he raised the possibility that the opinion by KP Law holds, and the town would complete the deal as agreed, with no changes to the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding used for the project.
He also raised the possibility of the developer walking away from the project and the possible setbacks it would bring. “If they decide to terminate, do they go down a path of termination for convenience? If the developer decides to terminate, and the town does not mutually agree, what happens to our ARPA funds?”
Sarro noted she will work on getting a response to Hartmann’s point.
Committee member Jared Guthrie added to the conversation. “Generally with ARPA funds you have a certain amount of time to execute the use of those funds from start to completion of the project,” Guthrie said. “If we’re still in that window, as far as the requirements for the use of the project goes, we would still be in the clear.”
Hartmann elaborated on the termination of convenience. “Contracts often have a clause during a Due Diligence period where the developer looks at the property and looks at what they’re getting into,” he said. “And if they get to a point where something has come up that they’ve identified they no longer want to move forward with the project, and the town mutually agrees.” He said he believed it was one of the three exemptions listed previously by Sarro, where the town could get out of the contract and not have the ARPA money at risk.
“If we somehow lost the ARPA money, then we would have effectively purchased that property with the town’s money because we would have to go fund it now,” Hartmann explained.
Committee member Cinder McNerny raised the question of a time limit on when the ARPA funds would have to be spent.
Sarro confirmed that the money would have to be spent by December of 2026. “We did already spend the money; the purchase and sale have already been executed,” Sarro said.
She continued. “If we were to part ways, it depends under what conditions. As Eric (Hartmann) stated, there are exceptions where you can re-bid the contract.
“If we’re gonna use other money to balance the budget, or manage the tax impact with what we’re doing with taxes, then we start to think about whether or not we’re compromising our credit,” McNerny said.
According to the town’s legal counsel, Town Meeting cannot revoke the Select Board’s position on the matter.
Select Board MaryEllen Fletcher commented after the meeting, where she reiterated the importance of the opinion of the town’s legal counsel. “The way it appears to me, our opinion cannot be revoked,” Fletcher said. “The developer is going forward with the project, and the veterans will have housing. We will have new veteran’s housing.”
“It’s very unfortunate that we’re in this situation, and what’s most unfortunate is that we’re considering the possibility of losing the opportunity for 41 units of veterans housing,” Fletcher said.
