A significant portion of the meeting was devoted to examining the firehouse project’s financial and logistical challenges. The Select Board reviewed a packet from Weston and Samson detailing recommendations for constructing a new salt shed and the need for a special town meeting vote in 2024, as previous votes had not approved the project. Financial requirements for the next phase were estimated between $471,000 and $496,000, covering design fees and construction services. However, concerns were raised about the unspent funds, with the finance team still finalizing year-end numbers.

The location of the new firehouse facility was a contentious topic, with the salt shed area currently deemed the most viable site after assessing six potential locations. Board members debated whether to consider using an alternative town-owned site, with opinions divided over whether the central location was ideal. One view highlighted that emergency responders typically gather in the town center to dispatch equipment, while another perspective argued that volunteer responders come from various parts of town.

Further delays and additional costs were discussed, as the board considered hiring Weston and Samson to assess the viability of the alternative site. The board emphasized the importance of transparency in their decision-making process, recognizing the community’s need to be informed of all options. A sense of urgency permeated the discussions, with one member advocating for a town meeting before the holidays to expedite the process, while others questioned the feasibility of completing the assessment before then.

The board scrutinized City Point’s performance, with concerns about the OPM’s effectiveness and management of the project. When asked to rate City Point’s performance, a board member gave a low score. The board had chosen City Point for their experience, but unmet expectations in project leadership led to a feeling of stagnation. Discussions about whether to continue with City Point acknowledged that changing OPMs would necessitate restarting the bidding process, potentially causing further delays. The board stressed the need for decisive leadership and accountability, emphasizing improved communication and formalized reporting systems to maintain oversight.

The meeting also addressed the town’s approach to solar and battery storage projects, considering the possibility of imposing a moratorium. An email from attorney Ikeman highlighted the challenges a new moratorium might face during an attorney general review, but he encouraged the board to pursue it nonetheless. The town enacted a moratorium in 2020, leading to zoning bylaws permitting large-scale solar projects. The board expressed concerns about the overwhelming number of solar facility applications and the environmental impacts, with some projects causing significant runoff issues affecting protected wetlands.

The board discussed the need to amend existing zoning bylaws, which were viewed as inadequate and inviting to developers. A joint meeting with planning and conservation committees was proposed to gather input on the moratorium and explore potential next steps. The board considered enhancing its capacity to manage the influx of solar projects rather than imposing a moratorium, recognizing that the current situation required a coordinated response from multiple committees.

In other matters, the board deliberated over the reimbursement of an employee, Ryan, for a hoisting license under his union contract, approving a motion for reimbursement of $270. The hiring process was also scrutinized, with a focus on consistency. Michaela Smith was hired as an assessor following an interview with Mr. Hopson, but the board emphasized the need for a consistent approach in presenting candidates for interviews.

As the meeting continued, discussions about a joint meeting with the new superintendent of Gateway, Melissa Mata Razao, were scheduled. The board acknowledged the importance of aligning this meeting with the proposed joint meeting on the solar moratorium.