The discussion of the Main Street Bridge replacement project took center stage as it reached a stage with the completion of the 100% bridge design by consultants from Howard Stein Hudson, alongside roadway and traffic designs. These developments were set for town review, with permit documents anticipated for submission by May 10th, following various regulatory reviews. The project’s importance was undisputed; however, concerns arose over the financial implications, particularly in identifying and securing funding sources. The board engaged in a debate over the merits of repair versus full replacement, weighing the potential eligibility for grant programs against the cost-benefit analysis presented.

In parallel, the South Street bridge’s condition was a topic of concern, with members of the board discussing the bridge’s potential failure and the severity of its current state. The term “imminent failure” was advised against. The board confirmed their pursuit of funding for the bridge’s replacement, considering repairs as a potential interim solution.

The meeting also addressed a neighborhood dispute involving a dog repeatedly wandering onto another resident’s property, causing disturbances. The dog’s owner outlined efforts to contain their pet, including the purchase of an electric collar. Despite this, the complainant remained concerned about the impact on their family and property, leading to a discussion on the best approach to resolve the issue. The board intervened, suggesting measures such as licensing and the use of a shock collar, and agreed to outline the requirements in a letter to the resident.

Further items addressed included the approval of a new probationary firefighter for the call fire department and the granting of a license agreement with National Grid for an electric vehicle charging station at the Senior Center. The selectmen then turned their attention to the warrant motions for the upcoming town meeting, with debates on the assignment of board members to present specific articles and the clarity and necessity of including certain questions on the ballot. The decision was made to revisit the ballot questions after the town meeting, as they had not been finalized.

The selectmen also deliberated over a request to place conservation restrictions on a piece of land, acknowledging its environmental significance and role as part of a large wildlife corridor. The restrictions would facilitate the land’s purchase while preserving its natural state. After assessing the implications of the decision, including the land’s future sale or donation, the board voted in favor of the conservation restrictions.

Governmental structure was another focal point, with recommendations from the government study committee, including the proposal to change the elected town clerk to an appointed position and to combine the elected collector and treasurer roles. Legal requirements were scrutinized concerning placing these recommendations on the town meeting agenda and ballot. The selectmen debated the motion’s wording and decided to disseminate the relevant documents for further review.

The process of placing questions on the ballot spurred debate, as the Elections Commission’s direction clashed with Town Council’s opinion. The Division of Local Services was referenced, which requires a majority vote at a town meeting to alter elected town positions. Options such as litigation, calling a special election, or legislative amendments were considered. The warrant was ultimately closed by striking the last three ballot questions, leaving only the debt exclusion for the senior center.

The meeting also touched upon the allocation of $56,000 in Digital Equity implementation funding, the impracticality of moving all sixth-grade students to Green Meadows, and the Fiber Optic Committee’s community input session. Additionally, the Clean Water Trust’s SRF funding and a request for an in-person meeting with local representative Dan Hall were mentioned.