The primary focus of the meeting was the need for bulletproof vests for the town’s police officers. The police department reported a budgetary shortfall of $1,710 for bulletproof vests, due to delays in state reimbursements. The department had applied for grants to cover five new vests but highlighted a growing need for nine in total. Each vest costs approximately $1,140. The Chief stressed the importance of meeting this contractual obligation, stating, “It’s a contractual obligation.”

Historically, the department had received half of the vest costs reimbursed by the Department of Justice and the state. However, the state had ceased payments since 2021, leading to uncertainty about future reimbursements. The discussion included whether reserve officers qualified for these funds, as the department had not previously provided vests for part-time officers. The dialogue revealed that no formal denial from the state had been issued, but the availability of funds remained uncertain.

The conversation also touched on the financial management of these reimbursements, which typically returned to a designated bulletproof vest fund rather than the general fund. This raised concerns about potential negative balances during reimbursement wait periods. It was suggested to reach out to state legislators to address the funding issues, emphasizing the importance of communication to resolve these challenges.

The focus then shifted to the Main Street Bridge project. The board deliberated on accepting a grant for the final design and permitting of the bridge, which required an in-kind match but no cash outlay. The grant aimed to make the project ‘shovel-ready,’ providing options for either complete replacement or repair of the bridge. Concerns arose about whether the grant would facilitate a less extensive rehabilitation or if it required a complete overhaul. A suggestion was made to seek a second opinion from another engineering firm to assess the bridge’s condition.

The implications of repairing versus replacing the bridge were debated. The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) had imposed barricades to prevent heavy vehicles from pulling off onto the shoulder, citing structural concerns with beams one and ten. The Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program, which prioritizes larger replacements for climate change adaptation, was also discussed. The board recognized that replacing the bridge could offer greater flexibility for addressing these issues, but a repair would not.

The logistical challenges of replacing the bridge were highlighted, noting its importance as a significant artery through the town. Past repairs, such as those on the Summers Road Bridge, had been completed without shutting down the bridge entirely. The MVP contract stipulations focus on replacement rather than repair, addressing potential water volume issues during significant storms. The potential benefits of accepting the MVP grant were acknowledged, as it would facilitate a 100% design for the replacement bridge, making it eligible for future federal or state funding opportunities.

Further discussions included the potential implementation of electronic voting at town meetings. The board considered renting a voting system with 200 clickers at a cost of $2,495 plus shipping, totaling $5,495 with staff operation. The possibility of purchasing the system outright for approximately $10,000 was also discussed. The need for reliable Wi-Fi and the clerk’s ability to manage the system were identified as potential obstacles. Some participants believed electronic voting could enhance efficiency and transparency, while others raised concerns about the additional workload for the town clerk.

A suggestion was made to reach out to neighboring towns to inquire if they had similar systems available for borrowing. The board also discussed starting town meetings earlier, at 6:30 PM, to accommodate families with children, which was met with general approval.

Additional topics included updates on community compact grants, particularly IT and municipal fiber grants, which could potentially fund the electronic voting system. The board addressed vacancies on the Conservation Commission and emphasized the committee’s importance in addressing environmental concerns. A narrative about the town’s cannon, which had been removed and later bequeathed to a town in Vermont, was shared. The board considered the historical significance and logistics of transporting it back to Hampden.

The zoning petition involving Great Horse emerged as another key topic. The proposed change aims to facilitate golf course expansion while maintaining the ability to farm on the property. The board acknowledged the need to submit this petition to the planning board for a public hearing before the October 29 town meeting. A motion was proposed to refer the zoning petition to the planning board, emphasizing the urgency of meeting the timeline. The board recognized the importance of following procedural steps to ensure compliance with state regulations.