The meeting began with a focus on the senior center’s site selection and building committee. After brief procedural matters, the discussion centered on public safety, particularly regarding the design and functionality of the new senior center. The police and fire chiefs emphasized the necessity of safety features for an aging population. These features included “dark sky” LED lighting for better visibility, wider parking spaces, and a one-way parking lot to minimize accidents. The design also incorporated a generator to ensure the facility could operate during power outages, potentially serving as a cooling and warming center during extreme weather conditions.

Concerns were raised about the parking lot’s layout, particularly its exit onto Harvard Road, which has a stop sign. The short distance from the parking lot to the turn could pose challenges for older drivers. It was suggested that a traffic review might be necessary, and the possibility of adding a warning light at the exit was discussed to enhance safety.

Another potential site, Bishop Road, was discussed, noting its advantages, such as a flat stretch that posed fewer challenges in terms of visibility and traffic flow. The police chief provided input regarding the impact of nearby firing ranges on the site, clarifying that the range was approximately a quarter-mile away and used primarily during training sessions twice a year.

The topic then transitioned to the logistics of the new senior citizen center, including the implications for sewer services down Bishop Road. Costs associated with these utilities were discussed, with a request for detailed financial responsibilities. An update was provided on the school committee’s engagement with the senior center project, where feedback was mixed and highlighted the need for more discussion and understanding of the implications of using school property for the project.

Public relations were also a focal point, with members expressing the need for better communication with the community to gather input and soften opposition to the project. The importance of early discussions with relevant authorities was emphasized to avoid complications during the planning stages.

Utility costs were another significant topic. An update from a National Grid distribution design engineer suggested that electrical work needed for the senior center could range from $300,000 to $400,000. Concerns were raised about potential delays in getting power connected, reflecting frustrations with National Grid’s slow response in other projects. Utility discussions also encompassed sewer and water costs, with estimates indicating that bringing water to the site could cost around $500,000. Propane was discussed as an alternative heating source, with suggestions for using two 1,000-gallon tanks.

The board also discussed the readiness to vote for a site recommendation. Despite concerns about utility costs and complexities surrounding the school department’s involvement in another site, a motion was made to recommend Bishop Road as the site for the new senior center, which passed with a majority in favor. Reasons for favoring Bishop Road included its potential for additional amenities and feasibility for construction.

The discussion touched on the conditions of the land at Bishop Road, including “magnificent” trails and usable material for construction, potentially leading to cost savings. The importance of addressing National Grid’s involvement was reiterated, acknowledging the necessity of managing utility upgrades and potential delays.

Environmental considerations were also discussed, particularly concerning property boundaries and regulatory requirements related to surrounding wildlife habitats. The importance of meeting all regulatory requirements was emphasized, especially regarding habitat protection.

Public comments featured a resident named Paul, who expressed disappointment regarding the site selection process, questioning the accessibility of Bishop Road for the majority of residents. Paul also raised concerns about potential contamination at the Bishop Road site and advocated for the use of internal resources instead of hiring a second Building Commissioner. Another public participant criticized the proposed building’s roof design.

There was a consensus on the necessity of scheduling another meeting to further discuss these topics, with September 11 set as the date for the next assembly. The importance of encouraging public participation and ensuring community members are well-informed was highlighted.