Click Below for Additional Meeting Resources:
Meeting Opening and Public Comment (Link: 00:00:00 – 00:19:00)
Dan Fox called the Select Board meeting to order on Wednesday, March 11th, announcing that the meeting was being recorded. The meeting began with public comment.
Nick Ward of Rolleston Road addressed the board regarding the budget override discussion. Ward acknowledged the difficulty of the board’s position, noting that they face criticism regardless of whether they raise taxes or cut services, and warned that the town’s demographic challenges would only make future budget discussions more difficult. He expressed sympathy for the Select Board’s role as a facilitation layer between town staff and town meeting, while noting that voters would ultimately hold them responsible for outcomes. Ward criticized the lack of discussion about strengthening the tax base through economic growth as a third option beyond raising taxes or cutting services, calling it both financial and political malpractice to ignore new growth taxation strategies.
A speaker from Roosevelt Avenue criticized the proposed budget approach, comparing it to state budget increases of 50% over five years without solving financial problems. He strongly opposed cutting the senior center, arguing that closure would increase medical emergencies, police and fire responses, and force seniors into nursing homes, ultimately costing the town more money. The speaker also criticized the proposed trash collection fee as simply moving costs from one pocket to another without saving residents money. He expressed frustration that budget problems were being addressed only two months before town meeting despite being foreseeable, and suggested the town should look at other cost-cutting measures rather than placing the burden on residents.
Tom McMan of 16 Sherwood Road spoke against including curbside trash and recycling in override options, calling it a catastrophic mistake to cut a service that everyone uses and benefits from. He argued that the transfer station could not handle increased load and that the proposed $250 yearly cost figure was inaccurate. McMan referenced Article 50 from the previous town meeting, which passed with overwhelming support and advised the Select Board to present Proposition 2½ override articles as single items rather than bundled packages. He quoted the article’s author, John Printable, explaining that the petition was about giving voters more control to approve expenditures they support without accepting those they oppose. McMan accused the board of using trash collection as leverage and going against the clear wishes of residents.
Leigh Lane of the Marblehead Current stated that there was a narrative in town that scare tactics were being employed to pressure residents into passing a tax increase and override, and suggested the board address this concern.
Sarah Fox of 46B Street criticized claims that people were surprised by the town’s financial situation, noting that the financial problems had been clearly presented since 2019 when Jason Silva held a meeting at the high school showing when the town “fell off the financial cliff.” Fox stated that Moses Grader was on the board then, Erin Noonan was attending meetings, and James Zisson was in the audience, so board members were aware of the situation. She expressed frustration with repeated empty promises about improving practices and getting information to the public, noting that with eight weeks until town meeting, the board was still unprepared. Fox criticized the threat to close the library, arguing it would harm equal access to education and the internet, particularly affecting children without resources to buy books and unemployed residents needing internet access for job applications. She warned that threatening the library could jeopardize future debt exclusion overrides, which are important for the town’s AAA bond rating. Fox also raised concerns about insurance costs for employees whose salaries are covered by revolving funds, noting that benefits should be included in those funds according to town bylaws, and questioned where savings from this correction would appear in the budget. She criticized the lack of line-item budgets and noted that all proposed cuts were citizen-facing services, calling this approach scare tactics that would hurt the town and damage trust for future debt exclusions.
Fox concluded public comment, and the meeting moved on to the town administrator update.
Town Administrator Update (Link: 00:19:00 – 00:24:00)
Thatcher Keezer provided updates on several town projects and initiatives. He reported good news regarding the Marblehead Shipyard Resilience Improvement Project, announcing that the town had received the Army Corps of Engineers general permit. Keezer credited the development planning team for leading the effort with partners and consultants. The town is now working with MASSDEP for the Chapter 91 license and awaiting word on the federal Port Infrastructure Development program grant, which would provide state funding for a major portion of the town’s contribution to federal harbor resilience work.
Keezer reported that the town’s $50,000 request for the Brown School EV charging project was rejected due to non-compliance with Section 3A MBTA zoning requirements. He noted this denial had been added to the list of grant rejections. He mentioned that the Planning Board held a public hearing the previous night regarding 3A zoning, though he had not yet received an update on attendance or discussion details.
Regarding the Coffin School community engagement process, Keezer announced a meeting scheduled for March 18 at 6 o’clock in Abbott Hall, to be facilitated by the UConn TAB program from the University of Connecticut. This meeting is part of the process to narrow down options for the best use of the Coffin School.
Keezer provided an update on the Five Corners intersection redesign project, which continues moving forward with Apex Engineers as consultants. The plan aims to reach 50% design completion by October 2026. The project seeks to redesign the intersection to make it more traffic and pedestrian friendly while creating economic opportunities for area businesses through outdoor public space that would attract visitors to Marblehead.
For facilities and capital improvements, Keezer praised Superintendent of Buildings and Building Commissioner Steve Cummings for completed work. The Picket House received 20 new energy-efficient windows to help control heating costs. At the Franklin Street Fire Station, window replacement was completed with 13 new windows installed, and a hot water heating system was fully installed and operational. Keezer emphasized that these improvements maintain buildings, increase energy efficiency, and protect building exteriors, crediting the building staff and fire chiefs for their involvement in the Franklin Street progress.
DPW Winter Operations and Pothole Report (Link: 00:24:00 – 00:38:00)
Dan Fox began to transition to budget review and override discussion but was interrupted by a board member asking to hear from the town administrator about winter operations. Keezer introduced Amy McHugh to provide an update on winter operations and pothole issues.
Amy McHugh provided a comprehensive overview of the town’s winter operations, explaining that the first line of defense is pre-treating roads with salt, which has been effective for storms with about 2 inches of snow over the past two years. These operations typically involve 11 people and nine vehicles plus a loader, running from two to six hours per operation. Plowing operations begin when three inches of snow is forecasted, deploying approximately 45 pieces of equipment and 47 to 53 employees from multiple departments including 30 vehicles from DPW, two from Board of Health, three from cemetery, five from Parks and Recreation, and five vehicles plus a backhoe from water and sewer. All operations are conducted with town employees.
McHugh reported that this winter included exceptionally long events, with one storm requiring over 30 continuous hours of plowing and another over 40 continuous hours. The town reached capacity multiple times, similar to 2022 when storms of 12 inches followed by 20 inches and then 12 inches again strained resources. The town worked with conservation and the Select Board to dispose of snow in the harbor, which McHugh noted is legal. Snow removal operations involve up to 50 vehicles and 40 to 50 employees, primarily conducted from midnight to 7 AM when streets can be closed to traffic. During snow removal periods, Marblehead employees work 18.5-hour days for consecutive three-night periods, returning to their regular departmental duties during daytime hours.
Regarding potholes, McHugh reported using approximately 1,500 tons of salt this year and explained that potholes are considered part of winter operations due to freeze-thaw cycles and excessive winter road use. The first pothole calls came in around January 12th, with eight calls between January 12th and 23rd that were addressed. Since January 23rd, the town has received 102 reported pothole locations. McHugh explained various repair methods, noting that cold patch from bags is expensive and ineffective, while hot asphalt is preferred but challenging to obtain in winter when asphalt plants close.
The town’s 3-ton hot box, purchased in 2015, went in for maintenance around January 20th just before major snow operations began. McHugh announced that through Chapter 90 funding, the town has purchased a new 4-ton hot box with dual burners, expected to be delivered by the end of the week. This new equipment will allow reheating of unused asphalt, keep material warm for 17 hours, and include capabilities for compaction and emulsification to make patches last longer. McHugh indicated that crews would begin daily asphalt pickup and focused pothole repair once the new equipment arrives, with hopes that the old hot box can also be repaired to allow two crews to work simultaneously.
For pothole reporting, McHugh recommended online reporting as the best method for maintaining written records, though phone calls are also accepted. She noted that potholes are widespread beyond Marblehead and encouraged drivers to slow down and exercise caution.
McHugh and Keezer discussed FEMA disaster reporting for the historic winter storms. McHugh explained that they submitted an initial estimate of $332,000 for DPW costs plus emergency response expenses, with the town engineer coordinating extensive 15-page records into spreadsheets. Keezer praised the extraordinary effort by department heads to document costs for reimbursement but noted that FEMA operates on a county-based system requiring Essex County to reach approximately $13 million in total damages to qualify for funding. He emphasized that despite Marblehead’s thorough documentation, reimbursement depends on other communities in Essex County submitting similar detailed reports to reach the threshold.
Erin Noonan asked about the possibility of contracting backup support for unusually heavy snow years, noting the extensive overtime and equipment wear. McHugh responded that most contractors require full plowing contracts rather than backup arrangements, and costs from other towns using outsourcing appear high. She also noted that during critical situations when backup would be needed, contractors are typically already committed elsewhere, making it expensive to pay for standby services. When Noonan asked about the prevalence of outsourcing versus in-house operations among municipalities, McHugh indicated there is a mix but believed the town’s current approach remains more cost-effective dollar for dollar.
Budget Review and Override Discussion (Link: 00:38:00 – 01:36:00)
Dan Fox transitioned the meeting to fiscal year 2027 budget review and override discussion. He outlined the agenda to include Keezer providing an overview of Proposition 2½, Fox summarizing the process and recapping the previous week’s discussion, and then board discussion of the two scenarios presented the previous week and override options.
Keezer provided a comprehensive overview of override options, explaining that tax levy refers to the total amount of property taxes collected by a city or town. He outlined three ways to increase the levy: the automatic 2.5% increase, new growth revenues, and overrides. For Marblehead, the 2.5% increase on approximately $79 million generates around $2.2 million in new money, with new growth revenues coming in slightly under $300,000 this year. Keezer noted that capturing new growth revenues has been a focus area, leading to improvements in the inspections department and assessor’s office to better identify qualifying activities.
Keezer explained different types of overrides, noting that while the term “override” is commonly used, there are several distinct categories. General operating overrides permanently increase the levy by a specified dollar amount, becoming part of the base for future years and requiring a simple majority vote at town meeting to authorize placement on the ballot. Debt exclusions are used for large capital projects, temporarily raising the tax levy to pay for borrowing over the life of the bond, with the authorization dropping when the debt is paid off. Capital expenditure exclusions work similarly but for capital projects without borrowing, creating temporary increases that drop back down after payment. Keezer also mentioned underrides, which decrease the levy, and a newer category for funding stabilization funds that allows one-time authorization with annual Select Board decisions on implementation.
For general operating overrides, Keezer described three structural approaches: single question overrides with one dollar amount requiring a yes or no vote; menu or multiple question options allowing voters to pick and choose among different departments or categories; and tiered or pyramid overrides with multiple tiers at different dollar amounts where the highest passing option becomes the approved amount. He provided examples from Melrose, which successfully passed a three-tier override with the highest $13.45 million option prevailing, and Stoneham, which used a two-tier approach with the $12.5 million option succeeding.
Erin Noonan clarified that multi-year overrides spread costs across multiple years rather than taking the full amount in year one, allowing flexibility to take funding as needed and potentially not requiring the full levy increase if circumstances change. Keezer confirmed this approach and noted that Orleans structured overrides with specific fiscal year implementation dates, though he did not have information on their success rate.
Fox presented a detailed summary of the budget process and scenarios, beginning with the $7 million townwide deficit identified after the state of the town address, split between $5 million municipal and $2 million school sides. He explained how Scenario A, which would require cutting 56 town employees representing a 30% workforce decrease, led to consideration of other approaches. The presentation included historical data showing town employees averaging 192 with current levels slightly below that average.
Fox detailed the rationale for considering a $1.5 million reduction in school funding allocation, explaining that employee benefits, pension, and OPEB costs are carried on the town side and allocated proportionally based on actual participation rates between town and school employees. He noted that any savings discovered during the budget process would be returned to schools, and schools would participate in higher revenue allocations in future years.
The presentation included data on municipal waste services across Massachusetts, showing that only 10% of towns provide both curbside pickup and transfer station access like Marblehead. Fox presented information on annual fees charged by other municipalities, with an average of $238.74 and examples ranging from $100 to $432 annually. For Marblehead, the estimated cost would be approximately $254 annually based on $2,037,000 in total costs divided among approximately 8,000 households, with town and school disposal costs excluded from this calculation.
Fox outlined three scenarios: Scenario A with 30% workforce reduction, Scenario B with school allocation reduction resulting in 21% workforce reduction, and a third option combining school allocation reduction and trash fees resulting in 11% workforce reduction affecting 20.5 employees. He detailed specific service impacts under each scenario, including reduced services in various departments and potential facility closures.
Noonan expressed support for Scenario B, emphasizing that the budget represents agonizing decisions rather than scare tactics and noting that the town has already made significant cuts over recent years. She argued that the municipal budget operates with thin staffing levels and that implementing fees for optional services is consistent with existing practices like kindergarten and sports fees. Noonan stated her preference for moving forward with the option that includes both school allocation adjustments and trash fees.
Alexa Singer raised concerns about cuts to the Community Development department, noting the recent departure of the town planner and the risk of losing institutional knowledge and grant-writing capabilities. She questioned whether eliminating positions would also eliminate access to federal funding and the ability to implement ongoing projects like the master plan and various infrastructure initiatives.
Keezer responded that the Community Development department was created partly to expand economic development capabilities and work with the business community, noting that Marblehead has less than 4% commercial property. He explained that reducing the department to just a town planner would require focusing solely on regulatory requirements, with most projects having to be shelved.
Moses Grader provided extensive analysis of the budget situation, noting that both municipal and school sides have been operating efficiently, with the municipal side down nine full-time employees since 2018 and schools having dropped 75 full-time staff while maintaining average spending levels compared to other Commonwealth districts. He characterized the situation as a “hard landing” caused by multiple factors: no additional revenue growth due to decreased local receipts offsetting the 2.5% increase, elimination of $2 million in free cash usage, and significant cost increases in healthcare and the trash contract totaling approximately $4 million.
Grader advocated for a “restoration budget” approach, suggesting the town present clear information about necessary cuts and ask residents to help navigate priorities through an override. He expressed preference for keeping the situation simple and straightforward, suggesting either maintaining trash services in the town budget and putting the full amount on an override, or pursuing a hybrid approach with $1.5 million in school allocation adjustments and $3.5 million in other cuts rather than the full $5 million deficit scenario.
Budget Discussion and Deficit Analysis (Link: 01:36:00 – 02:08:00)
Fox clarified Grader’s position on the budget scenarios, confirming that Grader supported reducing school allocation by $1.5 million but opposed the trash fee component. Grader explained his preference for a $4.5 million municipal deficit approach without school reductions, or alternatively a $3 million approach with the school allocation adjustment, but expressed concerns that the trash fee would add complexity and controversy to override discussions.
James Zisson shared personal anecdotes about community reactions to the proposed cuts, noting his wife’s concerns about library closure and questions about park maintenance and senior services. He expressed reservations about the trash fee proposal, stating that the board had not studied it sufficiently and referencing a detailed presentation given earlier in the week. Zisson reported visiting the Danvers transfer station and observing that many residents might opt out of curbside service, noting that Danvers charges by the pound and operates more like an industrial site requiring safety equipment. He expressed concern that the $250 annual fee could increase significantly and become less palatable to residents.
Zisson also raised legal questions about implementing trash fees, referencing a conversation with a retired board of health director who had attempted similar measures years earlier and faced significant opposition. He noted uncertainty about whether the town had accepted certain state statutes that would clarify authority for implementing such fees and suggested the board needed clearer legal guidance before proceeding.
Andrew Petty provided details about the new trash collection contract, explaining that the RFP process separated costs for different services including curbside collection for trash and recycling, disposal costs, and school collection services. He noted that the industry is moving toward automation, though the dense downtown district would continue with current collection methods. The contract includes providing 16,000 barrels at approximately $904,000, to be financed over five years using waste revolving funds from commercial accounts. Petty emphasized efforts to achieve efficiency and reduce costs where possible.
Fox pressed for a decision on budget direction, noting eight weeks remaining until town meeting and the need to provide guidance to the Finance Committee. Zisson supported moving forward with Scenario B as a planning tool, arguing that it would give voters options at town meeting rather than presenting cuts to library, parks, and Council on Aging services. He characterized Scenario B as providing a starting point for further deliberation.
Singer sought clarification about the waste department, emphasizing that the proposal involved eliminating curbside pickup and disposal services rather than the entire waste department, and that municipal and school building services were analyzed separately. She defended the board’s extensive research into budget options, noting years of financial projections and previous efforts including meals tax implementation. Singer argued that the timing of contract expiration and healthcare cost increases created circumstances beyond the board’s control.
Grader raised questions about legal authority to implement trash fees without town meeting approval, suggesting the board should plan for worst-case scenarios if legal opinions or mounting opposition prevented implementation of the fee structure.
Noonan disagreed with suggestions that insufficient research had been conducted on trash fees, citing extensive community research showing that only 10% of Massachusetts towns provide both curbside pickup and transfer station access. She argued that charging fees is consistent with other town practices and that reducing town staff by 21% rather than 11% would be unfair to municipal departments. Noonan emphasized that other communities have already made similar revenue adjustments and that Marblehead is behind in implementing such measures.
Singer raised concerns about eliminating the Community Development department, noting multiple ongoing projects including $175,000 for rail trail development, potential $11 million port infrastructure funding, $150,000 for Five Corners design, $100,000 in Green Communities funding, and state street landing grants. She argued that eliminating the department would put millions of dollars in projects on hold and make it difficult to attract qualified candidates for the town planner position. Singer requested reconsideration of the department cuts and clarification about library service reductions rather than complete closure.
Grader acknowledged the strategic value of Scenario B in reducing risk if overrides fail but maintained concerns about implementing trash fees without town meeting approval, suggesting there could be moral hazard in proceeding without explicit voter authorization.
Keezer clarified that trash collection cannot be included in override options because contracts must be signed before any vote, requiring funding to be either in the general fund budget or through established fee structures. The discussion concluded with Fox calling for a brief recess, noting that no formal vote had been taken on the budget direction.
Override Options Planning and Timeline Review (Link: 02:16:00 – 02:58:00)
Keezer reviewed the upcoming timeline for budget decisions, noting that the next Select Board meeting to vote on budget items would be March 19th at 1:00 PM. He outlined that the Finance Committee would hold budget sessions on Saturday March 28th, with warrant night scheduled for April 6th and town meeting on May 4th. Keezer clarified that the Finance Committee had voted to review all departments and budgets on March 28th rather than having a separate meeting on March 30th.
Noonan presented her objective for the evening’s discussion, which was to outline requested components for override scenarios to provide direction to staff. She noted that she had prepared a starting template to facilitate discussion and prevent the conversation from becoming unwieldy. Noonan emphasized that the board needed to clarify what they were asking staff to do by Thursday’s budget review meeting, with staff returning on March 25th to present options based on the board’s direction.
Zisson expressed concern about not having seen Noonan’s materials in advance, stating he had not received them prior to 7:00 PM that evening. Fox clarified that while most materials had been emailed to board members, Noonan’s specific worksheet was being presented for the first time as a discussion starting point rather than a formal recommendation.
The board discussed whether to pursue single or multiple override options. Zisson supported providing multiple choices to town meeting, stating that more options would likely benefit the process. Noonan agreed with multiple levels to provide opportunities for voters. Singer supported having multiple choices but emphasized the board’s responsibility to consider duration, categories, and specific options when structuring override proposals.
Grader advocated for a one-year restoration override with multiple questions allowing the town to select which cuts to restore, rather than pursuing multi-year overrides. He expressed concerns about the credibility of long-term projections and preferred focusing on clearly identifiable current-year costs. Grader suggested that while future projections were valuable exercises, voters might find it difficult to commit to three or four-year budget projections.
Noonan disagreed with limiting options to one-year restoration, citing criticism from the 2023 override attempt where residents complained about the lack of multi-year planning and the prospect of returning annually with similar requests. She argued that the town now had better capability for capital planning and that coming back repeatedly with restoration budgets had proven unsuccessful previously.
Fox expressed personal preference for addressing at least three years rather than solving the problem for only one year, noting that no override had passed since 2005. The board discussed various approaches including the Orleans model that allows voting on specific fiscal years for implementation.
Keezer described his conceptual matrix approach with three tiers: restore, restore plus invest, and a higher tier, with options to run numbers for both one-year and multi-year scenarios. The board agreed that the lowest tier would be single-year restoration, the highest tier would be multi-year, and they needed to determine the structure of a middle option.
The board discussed the mechanics of how multiple override questions would work at town meeting. A town moderator clarified that typically one article would be presented with amendments discussed in order, allowing voters to consider different options sequentially. Keezer explained that town meeting would authorize placing questions on the ballot, with the Select Board responsible for determining specific dollar amounts, purposes, and fiscal years.
Noonan detailed her vision for override tiers, suggesting that a restoration option should avoid severe cuts and restore staffing reductions while including the $250,000 stabilization fund contribution as a regular line item. For a second “stabilized” tier, she proposed protecting essential services through fiscal year 2029, restoring prior service cuts from recent years, establishing annual maintenance funding including vehicles, addressing public safety staffing levels by returning one or two police officers to reach 32 total officers, reviewing firefighter positions to address overtime issues, and implementing the compensation study to update salaries.
Singer sought clarification about the direction being given to Keezer, confirming that the board was looking at one-year restoration options and multi-year scenarios, with an intermediate level and an investment tier that would enhance services and align with neighboring communities. For the highest tier, Singer suggested including annual capital budget funding, department head consultations about community needs they currently cannot address, and potential increases to DPW staffing for road maintenance and restoration of services like lifeguards that had been cut in previous years.
Grader emphasized the importance of distinguishing between capital expenditures and operating expenses, noting that the town typically handles capital projects through debt exclusion overrides with a high success rate. Keezer clarified that the town had previously allocated $1 million from free cash for capital needs but lacked funding for that purpose in the current budget scenario.
The discussion concluded with Fox asking Keezer if he had sufficient direction to develop options for presentation on March 25th. The board agreed to focus on getting the analysis completed before making final decisions about which options to pursue and how to structure them for town meeting consideration.
License Renewals and Event Approvals (Link: 02:58:00 – 03:02:00)
Fox concluded the override discussion and moved to the next agenda item regarding licensing matters. He addressed some audience members who were leaving, asking them to keep noise levels down as the board had remaining business to conduct.
The board considered the annual renewal of a seasonal alcoholic beverage license for the Dolphin Yacht Club. Fox made a motion to renew the all-alcohol seasonal club license subject to all taxes and fees being paid to the town, receipt of all applicable department approvals, and compliance with Chapter 304X of 2004. The license was for the Dolphin Yacht Club at 17 Harbor employees with manager Scott Kelly. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously with all board members voting in favor.
The board also considered a local Sunday entertainment license renewal for the Dolphin Yacht Club. Fox made a motion to renew the license subject to all taxes and fees being paid and approval from the Commonwealth Department of Public Safety for Sunday entertainment at the Dolphin Yacht Club at 17 Harbor. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
The board reviewed a request from Company of Heroes for their annual 5K event. Fox explained that the organization had requested September 12, 2026 as the date for their annual 5K race, which would start at 9 AM at the VFW on West Shore, loop through town, and end at the VFW. The event expects 150 participants and serves as a fundraiser to train service dogs for veterans suffering from PTSD. Fox made a motion to approve the request from Claudette Mason, board member of Company of Heroes, subject to receipt of required certificate of insurance naming the town as additionally insured, approval from Marblehead police and fire departments, police details as determined by Marblehead police, prohibition of permanent street markings, and removal of all temporary markings at the event’s conclusion. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Keezer introduced an item regarding a sustainability purchasing policy, explaining that the town needed to accept this policy to continue eligibility for grants through the Sustainable Materials Recovery Program from the Department of Environmental Protection. He described the policy as minor tweaking of existing purchasing policies to incorporate sustainable practices where feasible and noted that it contained nothing overly burdensome. Keezer indicated that approving the policy would allow the town to continue receiving grant money from the DEP.
Policy Adoption and Board Announcements (Link: 03:02:00 – 03:06:00)
Fox noted that the sustainability purchasing policy included “whenever feasible” as a key condition and asked if board members had reviewed the document. He made a motion to adopt the sustainable purchasing policy as presented to maintain the town’s eligibility to apply for Sustainable Materials Recovery Program grants from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
Fox announced a vacancy on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and proposed setting deadlines for applications and interviews. After discussion about timing, the board agreed to set April 3rd as the application deadline and April 8th for interviews, giving applicants less than a month to apply.
Grader announced that the school committee had recognized an ambassador the previous week and suggested it would be appropriate for the Select Board to acknowledge this recognition given the person’s townwide involvement. Fox made a motion for the Select Board to send a letter of appreciation for the individual’s dedication and service to the town, addressed to their family.
Noonan announced that she had worked with Lisa Hooper and Jamie Block at the community center to organize a forum for department heads to engage with the community on April 9th from 10 AM to 12 PM. She explained that the forum would provide an opportunity for department heads to present information about their departments, operations, priorities, recent focus areas, and ongoing projects, as well as discuss any challenges they face. Each department head would give a presentation or summary followed by a question and answer session with attendees. Noonan noted that most department heads could attend, with the police chief sending a representative due to a conference commitment. She also considered including the new light commissioner and superintendent to give community members an opportunity to meet their department heads. Noonan suggested the event could be posted as a Select Board meeting if board members wanted to attend, noting that one member would be away due to a prior commitment.
Fox commented that the forum would be helpful to the community, especially given the budget challenges being discussed, as it would help residents understand the challenges department heads face. The meeting concluded with Fox calling for a motion to adjourn, which passed unanimously.
All About Town provides all information in a good faith effort to improve community engagement and awareness. However, text is generated by artificial intelligence, and we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information provided herein. Use of the site and reliance on any information on the site is solely at each individual’s own risk.