The most significant item discussed was the approval of a new testing format for septic system licenses. Previously, Dighton required permits for septic system installations contingent upon current licensing from at least two other towns. The board has now shifted towards a testing approach. The new format includes 18 interchangeable questions designed to assess applicants’ understanding of installation plans and Title 5 regulations. This change ensures that new applicants, who have not been previously licensed in Dighton, demonstrate their knowledge of local regulations before obtaining a permit. Existing licensed inspectors will not be required to retake the test during renewals. A motion to approve the new testing requirements was made, seconded, and passed.

Another topic was the reimplementation of bond animal permits. The board addressed concerns about animals, especially chickens, encroaching on neighbors’ properties and causing rodent problems. The board emphasized the need for inspections, which had been previously dropped, to mitigate these issues. A motion was made to approve the reimplementation of bond animal permits, seconded, and passed. The board discussed the cost of the permits, noting that the previous fee of around $25 was reasonable and primarily intended to cover inspection costs rather than generate revenue. The board stressed that the goal was to ensure community well-being and awareness about proper animal care practices, not to penalize residents. There was also a suggestion to distribute educational materials to inform residents about the responsibilities associated with animal ownership. Notices will be mailed to previous barn owners about the reinstatement of permits starting in 2025, and a new advisory commission is anticipated to develop regulations for the care of chickens, goats, and other animals.

The board also tackled concerns about the local “Right to Farm” signs, which some residents misunderstood as permission to keep livestock freely. It was clarified that the bylaw specifies that only commercial farmers, those who declare their livestock on tax returns, have the right to farm. Non-commercial owners do not have the same liberties. A proposal was made to draft a letter explaining the bylaws to better inform residents and minimize misunderstandings.

In other discussions, the board reviewed the temporary food permit fees for local vendors. They considered reducing the fee from $125 to $75 for vendors participating in fall events, due to the limited opportunities available during this time of year. The adjustment aimed to provide financial relief and encourage food vendors to operate in the town. A motion to approve the reduced fee, effective from September 1st until January 1st of the following year, was put forward and passed.

The Northern Bristol County Public Health Alliance was another topic of interest. The alliance, a collaboration among several towns to enhance public health services, was focused on a deadline for signing an agreement related to a grant. The deadline was set for October 31st, and the alliance aims to provide efficient public health services, including resources for public health emergencies such as epinephrine for allergic reactions and services related to opioid overdoses. The board agreed to wait for a draft agreement to review at the next meeting, emphasizing the necessity of thorough preparation before formalizing the collaboration.

Budget discussions also took a portion of the meeting. An individual expressed frustration over a budget line item for the transfer station listed as $153,000 without a detailed breakdown of costs. This prompted questions about fund allocation and sources. There was a suggestion to consult with the town accountant for detailed financial insights. The conversation then shifted to the budget for education, highlighting the lack of available funds for certification courses necessary for job performance. The individual emphasized the importance of education for the town’s benefit and considered options for reallocating funds or utilizing grants for funding.

Solid waste management costs were also discussed, with a total expenditure mentioned at $783,000. Concerns were raised about the large numbers represented in a few line items and the need for transparency in fund allocation. The board discussed the potential implementation of a swap shed to reduce waste and the possibility of purchasing a cardboard compression machine to generate revenue from recyclable materials.