The most notable discussion revolved around Townsend’s compliance with the Green Communities program, particularly concerning vehicle policies and energy consumption. The town currently possesses no electric vehicles in its fleet, raising concerns about meeting the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) first policy necessary for continued participation in the Green Communities initiative. Notably, police vehicles, which were previously exempt from fuel efficiency requirements, will require compliance after fiscal year 2026. This change necessitates strategic capital planning, particularly for heavier-duty vehicles like loaders and plows, which are exempt if they exceed 8,500 pounds.

Karen Chapman from the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission provided a detailed annual report on Townsend’s status as a Green Community, outlining the five criteria required for maintaining this designation. She explained that while Townsend has met certain criteria, such as the “as of right” citing for renewable energy projects and a streamlined permitting process, there are areas in need of attention. The report highlighted a 6.9% reduction in energy usage in municipal buildings since fiscal year 2023, attributed to conservation measures at the highway garage. However, the repeater generator site was identified as the least energy-efficient building, despite its minimal contribution to overall consumption.

Chapman introduced data from the Massachusetts Energy Insight (MEI) database, which tracks energy consumption across various categories, revealing that the town’s buildings account for a portion of energy use. Discrepancies in data, such as a surprising 260% increase in energy consumption for street and traffic lights, led to a call for further investigation into data accuracy.

The board also discussed the implications of transitioning to all-electric systems in town buildings, considering the potential for securing up to $500,000 in grants for decarbonization and municipal electrification projects. A proposal to change heating systems from gas or oil to electric was put forth, with assurances that grants could cover such conversions. However, the board recognized the complexities involved, including the need for adequate generator capacity and the competitive nature of grant applications. Strategic planning was deemed critical to navigate these challenges effectively.

Further, the meeting addressed the management of public records requests and the proposal of a structured fee system to manage the increasing number of such requests. A motion to implement a minimum fee of $25 for all public records requests was proposed.

The meeting also covered logistical arrangements for an upcoming special town meeting, focusing on improving presentation setups to address previous issues with lighting and audio-visual quality. Suggestions included moving the table and podium to floor level to enhance visibility and potentially eliminating slides for some presentations to avoid confusion. The Select Board expressed a willingness to adapt based on the town moderator’s insights and decisions regarding meeting logistics.

Lastly, the meeting touched on budgetary discussions, including a proposed school budget override and the potential transition to a pay-as-you-throw model for trash collection services. Concerns were raised about the administrative challenges of implementing such a fee, with an emphasis on communicating the implications of the override vote to residents. Failure to pass the override could lead to the elimination of trash collection services or the introduction of a fee for those opting to use Town services.