The recommendation of candidate number four emerged as the most development, sparking considerable debate within the group. While this candidate scored the highest in evaluations, their proposal came with conditions that could not be met without a town vote, notably their interest in purchasing the house and barn. This raised questions about the viability of recommending a candidate whose proposal hinged on a sale that was not possible under current town constraints. One participant questioned the rationale, stating, “if we’re saying it’s the strongest candidate and we know it’s not going to work, then why are we putting it forward?” Despite these concerns, a motion was made and carried to recommend candidate four to the select board, with four members in favor, albeit with caveats discussed during the meeting.

Participants weighed the implications of recommending candidate four despite their explicit conditions and considered recommending multiple candidates to safeguard the town’s interests. This strategy would allow for contingency plans if negotiations with candidate four did not proceed as hoped. Concerns were also raised about candidates one and two, with particular skepticism about proposal two due to its lack of detail regarding the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) requirements and management structure.

Another aspect discussed was the financial implications tied to the proposals, especially the costs associated with proposal number one, which involved significant tree removal and irrigation installation. In contrast, proposal number four stood out as the only option that did not incur costs for the town, though it required more extensive planning, such as the installation of a new pump for the well and necessary cold storage. This financial consideration further complicated the decision-making process, with participants expressing a need to balance ambition with fiscal responsibility.

The group also grappled with the potential sale of the house and barn associated with the orchard. It was suggested that restrictions should be placed on any future sale. However, it was acknowledged that this would require declaring the property surplus and following an RFP process, which could pose additional challenges.

Public input during the meeting raised concerns about the accessibility of redacted proposals, with one member expressing frustration over difficulties locating them. They emphasized the importance of understanding potential disqualifying elements in the proposals, particularly regarding candidate one’s funding requirements for tree removal and irrigation. In response, it was clarified that while such funding might require a town vote, alternative funding sources could be explored without necessitating a town-wide vote.