The approval of the consulting contract represents a key decision by the board, as it impacts the town’s financial administration. The contract, amounting to $40,000 for the fiscal year, is to include an additional $9,200 for software fees required to update obsolete software. These updates are critical for the town’s property valuation processes. The board also discussed the possibility of using Covid relief funds to cover the software update expenses. An interim contract for two months was likewise approved to ensure continuity of service until the end of the fiscal year.

The retirement of the long-time assessor, Fred Alosi, chair of the Board of Assessors, highlighted the challenges in hiring new personnel with the specialized skills required for the role. The board considered the option of re-advertising the assessor’s position but opted for the consulting company’s services to maintain efficiency in town operations. The difficulty in finding qualified candidates for the assistant assessor position was also acknowledged, with several individuals interviewed lacking the relevant real estate or property appraisal experience.

Another important topic of discussion was the Water Department’s budget and the Enterprise fund, which totaled $257,200. The budget saw increases mainly in the salaries of the superintendent and operator, due to the superintendent’s hours rising from 30 to 40 per week. The increase was justified by the superintendent based on the increased workload and a lead service line survey requirement. Board members scrutinized the salary hike, comparing it with other communities and examining the revenue projections after a recent water rate increase. The superintendent assured that revenues were meeting expectations, and the board expressed satisfaction with the revenue collection. However, the board raised concerns about the financial situation of the Water Department and stressed the importance of careful spending.

The meeting also touched upon the department’s tiered rate structure and the absence of budget allocation for future capital expenses. The 59% increase in operator salary spurred a debate over the necessity for a full-time operator and the prospects of sourcing water from the Connecticut River, although this was recognized as a complex issue due to permitting challenges.

In addition, the board considered capital expenses pertaining to the school’s heating and cooling system. The poor air quality in a building, caused by ductwork not serviced since 1991, was a concern. The board deliberated on whether to allocate $170,000 for mini splits as a solution, with some members advocating for a more comprehensive analysis of alternatives before proceeding.

The board also discussed the replacement of fire department air packs and a pickup truck for the Highway Department. In the context of environmental sustainability, the potential cost savings of an electric vehicle versus a hybrid was debated, including the need for charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. The board decided to await a report on the potential charging infrastructure costs before making a decision on the truck replacement.

Furthermore, the meeting addressed the potential purchase of an $85,000 truck and the installation of charging stations for electric vehicles, with cost and practicality considerations taking center stage. The board explored potential state funding under the Green Community Act for such initiatives. The repair of the Yellow Barn was debated, as it is a historical structure that was donated to the town. The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was suggested as a potential funding source, pending input from the Historical Commission.

The replacement of a 2017 unmarked police cruiser at a cost of $65,000 was another issue, with some members questioning the need for an additional marked vehicle. The potential purchase of electronic voting tabulators was discussed, balancing concerns about state mandates against the time-saving benefits for election workers.