After the May Town meetings, where six votes rejected the DPW at 340 Route 6 and affirmed Town Hall Hill as the best site for a new DWP facility,  a  Select Board  Member  stated in June that the use of 340 Route 6 for a new DPW was still open – in part because the SB’s had chosen that site in 2022. He had consulted Town Counsel who had advised that the Town was not “precluded” from opening this issue again.  He further stated that Town meeting votes are advisory, and not binding or final on the matter of the location of the DPW.

It is correct that not all Town Meeting votes bind the Select Board’s actions.  But Zoning and financial articles do bind the Select Board –  and Policy 37 states plainly that the SB must honor Ton Meeting [votes] as well.   In other words, all the DPW articles were either zoning  (Change of use at 340 Rt 6- defeated) or financial  (articles 3 and 4 at STM, and Article 13 at ATM).

Special Town Election on June 27 will be additionally clarifying on Article 13, to fund $2.8 million (cap) to develop an engineering and site construction plan for the DPW at Town hall Hill “predominantly”  and specifically excluding 340 Route 6.   The Article calls for a “Schematic”  as step 1 –  this includes a location survey, phase 2 environmental study, preliminary site and buildings plan, and cost projections.   When these are approved, full engineering can begin within this cap.

Already the Town’s Ad Hoc Building Committee for the DPW is strongly supporting this effort and is hopeful that voters will pass the Ballot question related to Article 13.  If this occurs, there is no remaining question about the binding impact of STM/ATM votes on the DPW.