HANSON – Sometimes when you want a seat at the table, you have to set the table yourself.
The Select Board had made their expectation and demand – during a September meeting with the state DEP and the EPA – for a seat at the decision-making table regarding the cleanup at the former National Fireworks factory site, were left wanting when the next joint informational meeting was scheduled in Hanover, at that town’s insistence.
“Hanover is still pinpointed to have the forum, but I also asked the question if they could have a second forum, possibly in Hanson, for people who could not make the first one,” said Town Administrator Lisa Green told the board on Tuesday, Nov. 7.
While Hanson officials will be attending a January 2024 session in Hanover – and encourage residents to attend – Hanson officials will also be insisting on a separate meeting in Hanson, which the other communities are also invited to attend.
They are also putting it in writing, to the DEP and Gov. Maura Healey.
The DEP and EPA had discussed having a community forum involving the towns of Hanson, Hanover and Pembroke to provide an update on the site cleanup for residents.
“In working with Hanover to try to get this scheduled, we were narrowing in on a date in December to have the forum in Hanover, unfortunately, we just got an email from the EPA that due to some timing issues and conflicts, they have to move the community meeting to January,” Green said.
“Ms. Green told me it was going to be in Hanover, and I said, ‘And here we go again,” said Chair Laura FitzGerald-Kemmett. “Were we not clear with the folks who were here before that we want to have a seat at the table. That Hanson needs to be taken seriously, that Hanover’s been driving the bus the whole time?”
Green reached out to Hanover, finding that town’s manager to be “let’s say, reluctant – non-cooperative, maybe” to have the forum in Hanson FitzGerald-Kemmett said. She asked Green to bring the matter to the board in case it was just her that felt this way.
She was not alone.
“I’m right there with you,” said Select Board member Ann Rein.
“Can we take the reins and just say we’ll schedule a time [and have a forum]?” Select Board member Ed Heal asked.
There have been separate public meetings before.
“But I really thought it would be nice to show a partnership and collaboration,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “Cleary, that was a bit overly optimistic on my part.”
Green said that the one night that works for the EPA and DEP may not work for town officials and residents, so it is hoped that having a second session in Hanson might fill the need for all towns.
“You’re being extremely diplomatic,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said.
“We were all on the same page, trying to not only be as collaborative and inclusive as possible with those two particular towns, but with other towns that also might not have been considered that also wanted to have a voice,” Vice Chair Joe Weeks said, asking if Hanson should communicate their request in writing for a more prominent seat.
“Different people learn in different ways,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “Perhaps [one] is not an auditory learner, so we’ll put it in writing to you.”
Heal argued the need to “really push the governor at the same time as the DEP.”
While Green said collaboration was important, she agree with FitzGerald-Kemmett that such overtures to Hanover had been rebuffed in the past and that town seemed to be digging in its heels on the point now. While she would be glad to reach out to the chair of Hanover’s board, Hanson wants to have more equal role as the cleanup gets closer to its backyard.
“Hanover can only take the lead if the DEP lets them,” she said.
“We’re at the table, but it’s not in equal seats,” Weeks agreed. Hanson should start leading and inviting other towns to come to them.
While Conservation Agent Frank Schellenger and Health Agent Gil Amado also agreed with taking a stronger stance, but argued it was very important not to exclude themselves from the Hanover meeting.
The Select Board members also plan on going to the Hanover meeting.
“That town has been more invested on a regular basis,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. “I think they probably have more citizens that have been following this more closely than we probably have. … We’re a little late to the game.”
About a bear
In other business, the Select Board moved to clarify the Police Department’s options regarding the black bear roaming around town, having already munched on livestock as well as bee hives and birdfeeders.
“First and foremost, I want to say that we have first responders, who are experts,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said, noting it has been a subject of heated debate on Facebook. “They are professionals in the job they do, and the Police Department is one of those groups. We hire them for their expertise and we hire them to do a job – and at some point, we have to defer to those experts.”
Police Chief Michael Miksch has been consulting with Mass. Fisheries and Wildlife officials about options regarding the bear, she noted.
“You’re not going to find anyone who loves Burrage [conservation management area], wildlife, anything more than I do,” she said. But Miksch and Mass. Wildlife have identified one particular bear that has, on a number of occasions, killed livestock and demonstrated little fear of humans.
“That increases the level of concern,” she said.
Options available
FitzGerald-Kemmett quoted Mass. Wildlife as saying its “staff are coordinating with local police and environmental police to monitor this situation. While the bear has attacked livestock, it has not exhibited behavior that poses a direct threat to human safety. Mass. Wildlife is not attempting to euthanize the bear, however lethal removal by law enforcement may be required if they determine there is a threat to public safety.”
Mass. Wildlife has said that relocation is not an option for bears causing property damage as it would “transfer this problem behavior to another community. Bears that have learned to raid chicken coops or kill livestock will not stop that behavior if they are moved elsewhere.”
The only situations in which bears are removed to another location are to remove an immediate public safety threat in urban areas – not caused by the animal’s behavior but by their proximity to people and could cause a vehicle collision.
“It is possible that the bear will move out of the area on its own,” she quoted Mass. Wildlife as saying. But they spend more time in residential areas looking for birdfeeders, trash, unprotected backyard chickens, goats and outdoor pets.
Mass. Wildlife officials have already spoken to property owners who have experienced bear-related damage, offering tips on removing food services and protecting livestock.
“What they’re saying is, if you truly love these bears then don’t make them feel welcome in your back yard,” FitzGerald-Kemmett said. That includes holiday pumpkins, which it has been photographed doing.
Rein objected to the tone of Mass. Wildlife’s statement toward property owners.
“Yes, the bears are here, but they just got here,” she said. “Expecting everyone to be prepared for something that they weren’t expecting and castigating them because they’re complaining because their animals are getting killed is so wrong, I can’t even.”
They did their due diligence for the predators they know are here, Rein said.
“I’ve got bees,” she said. “I got a visit from the bear, but it ended well.” Her chickens are protected, and her bees will be.
“Nothing could have predicted this,” Rein added. “That this one bear is that bold.” By taking care to protect their property and livestock, they are protecting the bear, she said.

HANOVER – A joint meeting of the South Shore Tech School Committee and School Building Committee on Wednesday, Oct. 25 voted 7-0, with one member absent, on the procedure for bringing a school renovation or expansion project to the voters in its eight member towns.
They also voted to authorize the building project team to submit the preliminary design program (PDP) draft to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) including the educational plan.
The Building Committee meets again on Thursday, Nov. 2 and the SST School Committee meets next on Wednesday, Nov. 15. A community meeting in Whitman is scheduled for 7 p.m., Thursday, Dec. 14 in Whitman Town Hall. Similar meetings are scheduled for Nov. 9 in Marshfield and Dec. 5 in Rockland.
All those attending the Zoom session have a vested interest in knowing how the district would ask their communities to weigh in on an eventual school project, according to Superintendent-Director Dr. Thomas J. Hickey, in introducing bond counsel Rick Manley from the firm Lockelord.
“Rick has been a huge help to us over the years – including all the years when we were hoping we’d get in [to the MBSA project pipeline] and a lot of ‘what ifs,’” Hickey said. The School Committee has the power to determine how the district will ask its voters for their approval or disapproval of a project.
“It is on our agenda tonight for you to take action,” he said, noting it requires a two-thirds of all committee members voting to pass.
Assuming regional school debt can be done in two different ways, Manley said.
“It sounds as though, at this preliminary [point] you’d like to consider going to the towns in a district-wide election to seek approval,” he said. A majority of voters – 51 percent – casting affirmative votes during that election, regardless as to town, would pass the measure by voting un favor.
The district could also opt for a town-by-town election process.
“When you know what the total amount’s going to be, that you’ve gotten approval from MSBA, you then vote to approve the debt, subject to an election happening, on town meeting warrants,” based on the committee’s vote, Manley said.
Not only question, but the polling hours – no longer than eight hours on an election day for each town – should be the in all eight towns. The district is not required to go before town meetings to appropriate the money.
Whitman representative Dan Salvucci asked if ballot questions would include what each town’s share of the project cost would be.
He noted that both Whitman and Abington have projects going at the present time, which could affect the response from those two towns, he said.
“If we decide to put on the cost for each town – Whitman is 24 percent, a quarter of the bill – and we’ve got a DPW project that’s going on right now, so I don’t know how the residents of Whitman are going to feel about that,” Salvucci said. “Because we need the school.”
Manley said it is possible to do that, and has been done by a couple other district, but indicated the best information that could be offered is the approximate share of the principal of the borrowing.
“This ballot question is not asking a town how they’re going to pay for it,” Hickey said. “Some communities would handle that separately.”
Manley agreed that there is no legal authority for a district to put a debt exclusion question on its ballot. Select Boards must do that.
Communities must also come to agreement on the number of polling places being operated for the vote.
“We try very hard as we advise on one of these to kind of bring everybody along to a consensus to that,” he said. Because turnout is lower for this kind of election, Manley’s firm has advised all communities they work with, including cities like Chelsea and Revere to have just one polling place open.
Voters would also be limited to voting on the day of the election or through the absentee voting process.
“We’ve been advised at the Secretary of State’s office that early voting is not permitted for one of these elections,” Maley said. “The reason for that, I believe, is because the activity of early voting can be opted in or not.”
That would create problems for the requirement of uniformity in access to the voting process.
Hickey said the special election on the school would be in January 2025 – after the 2024 general election.
“There’s enough time to orient everyone, to bring our town clerks together,” he said. “They’re the experts at how to do this. Let’s work with them to develop a mechanism with doing nothing last-minute.”
The educational plan amended during the meeting is part of the preliminary design program (PDP) summary.
“This is a significant next step in our process,” Hickey said.
Jen Carlson from project management firm Left Field reviewed building options and comparative cost analyses.
Carl Franchesci of architectural firm DRA, said the four components of the PDP are the educational program for a range of student populations between the current 645 and the maximum 975 which the MSBA would consider; an existing conditions assessment; site development requirements and preliminary options.
More than half the current building space is insufficient and/or fails to meet today’s standards for the current enrollment. Site development requirements are also addressed in the PDP.
Of the four options facing the district at the start of the process – base repair, renovation, addition/renovation and new construction – base repair and renovation have been ruled out.
The addition/renovation and new construction options could add from 188,000 square feet to 278,000 square feet to the building in one of five design choices, for a total of 25 options. The options also include choices of the site layout with the building and athletic fields in differing locations.
“For any of these enrollments that are being considered, greater than what you have today, it’s highly likely … we’re going to need a wastewater treatment plant,” Franchesci said.
Preliminary cost estimates – for comparative purposes only – at this stage, which are based on square-footage alone,
The numbers provide an indication of what options could be close in price or preferable to another, but are not actual construction cost numbers.
“It might influence us to make some decisions, but it’s not the headline that we’ve got the answer on how much it’s going to cost,” Hickey said.
“We’ve tried to account for where the costs in each option will be so we can compare apples to apples,” Carlson said.
She indicated the MSBA was planning to increase the cost per square foot on Oct. 26, which they did.
Very preliminary figures – for comparison purposes only – for all complete project costs in all design options for a new building range from $293,737,225 for a 645-student building to $329,912,113 for a building that can accommodate 750 students. Total construction costs are estimated at $234,989.780 to $263,929,690 for a new building.
Salvucci noted that portable classrooms for an addition/renovation option are projected at $11 million all by themselves.
“It’s kind of like a waste of money to go renovation rather than new,” he said.
“That’s the trend we’re seeing right now across all of our projects, that an add/reno is either becoming more expensive or as expensive as new construction,” Carlson said.
Salvucci said the committee has to decide how many students they think will be enrolled in the school by the time it is built as well as in the future, especially as more towns have expressed interest in becoming member communities.
“That becomes the sweet spot question of how much access can we afford to give a very popular form of education in our region,” Hickey said.
SST enrollment is now at 671, according to Hickey, but the MSBA required the district to consider what a building at that enrollment would cost.
“In my opinion, if you were to put a feeling behind some of these enrollment numbers, I would say the 645 [option] makes things worse,” he said. “Whatever I’m saying is going to have to be attached to a price tag, and ultimately, we’ve got to find something affordable, but if we can limit the question to ‘Can we service kids with these numbers? The 645 is less capacity than what we have now … 750 students would be kind of like our current situation plus Marshfield.”
At 805, the school would begin to solve its waiting list issues, but that is not the MSBA’s concern in approving a building. Hickey said the question of enrollment permitted by the design phase will continue at the Nov. 2 meeting.
“They want to make sure that the spaces in the building match up to the ed[ucational] plan,” Carlson said. “That’ll also help you to make decisions.”