22:53A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to evaluating a new pricing proposal from GW Shaw for trash collection services. The proposal included two potential pricing structures: a comprehensive all-in price and a base fee plus tonnage charges. The board was informed that the all-in price for the first year was approximately $77,460, with an expected annual total of $780,000 for municipal buildings. This amount represented a decrease from the current $820,000 expenditure. However, concerns were raised regarding the variable costs associated with tonnage, especially in light of increasing recycling expenses compared to trash collection. Board members expressed worry about potential cost spikes if the town’s trash output increased unexpectedly, with one member voicing discomfort over the unpredictability of tonnage expenses.

The board also addressed the financial strain caused by the town’s reliance on a “purple bag” fee system for trash collection revenue. It was noted that many residents have opted for private trash services, reducing revenue from the purple bags and creating a financial shortfall. This situation has prompted discussions about the necessity of a budget override to cover the projected $300,000 shortfall in trash collection funding. The board debated whether to separate school budget overrides from general fund overrides, allowing residents more discretion in how their taxes are allocated. One member suggested that breaking up the overrides could provide residents with options, potentially garnering more support for specific funding needs.

43:43Further complicating the budget discussions were challenges related to Proposition 2½, which limits property tax increases. The board acknowledged the difficulty of managing school budgets, particularly concerning fluctuating special education expenses. The unpredictability of these costs, combined with limited state and federal funding support, has added pressure on the town’s financial planning. The board expressed hope that once the Student Opportunity Act concludes in FY 27, the funding formula might be revisited to better support regional schools.

The conversation also touched on contract negotiations with Shaws for waste management services. The board favored a full-service contract, which would mitigate financial risks by allowing Shaws to manage trash collection without increasing the contract amount. Comparisons were drawn between Townsend’s contract, priced at $780,000, and a similar contract in Lunenburg, estimated at $900,000, prompting questions about cost disparities.

The board also considered the potential impacts of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) and discussed the feasibility of implementing a fee structure to cover household trash collection costs. The necessity of researching how to manage non-payments, akin to real estate tax delinquencies, was highlighted.

In addition to budgetary concerns, the board briefly discussed various infrastructure projects, including the complexities of utility pole ownership and the need for better coordination among utilities. The board emphasized the importance of understanding ongoing discussions at the state level regarding utility pole attachments and the rights of way, which could impact local governance.

1:05:11The meeting concluded with updates on state aid and the town’s financial position. The board noted a modest increase in state aid, with a 2.2% rise aligning with previous years. A substantial increase in the town’s certified free cash amount, reported at $628,955, was also highlighted. Some of this free cash had already been allocated, and further discussions were underway regarding potential allocations to capital stabilization funds.