Planning Board Chair Raymond Phoenix speaks against about the solar battery storage sytstem bylaw at the Oct. 7 Town Meeting.
Reminder Publishing photo by Sarah Heinonen
LUDLOW — Of the 12 articles brought before Ludlow’s Oct. 7 Town Meeting, five provoked debate and controversy, but perhaps none more so than the recommendations to change the town’s form of government. Voters rejected the measure 41-29.
The Charter Committee was formed a year ago to study the town’s government and make suggestions as to how it might be improved. The committee reviewed various forms of government in Massachusetts, interviewed people in the towns with those government formats, met at open meetings and sought public feedback at forums. Ultimately, the committee recommended an elected seven-person town council to replace the representative Town Meeting as the legislative branch and an appointed Town Manager to take the place of the executive Board of Selectmen.
Additionally, the committee recommended that most of the positions and boards, except the School Commitee and Library Board of Trustees, be changed from elected positions to appointed ones. It had been stated that the reason for this was that many of the positions require specialized knowledge that someone elected to the position might not necessarily possess.
A yes vote would have referred the charter to the state legislature for review, after which it would come back to Ludlow for a townwide referendum. As Selectman Antonio Goncalves said, the decision was whether to ‘put it to the voters or not put it to the voters.”
Resident Raymond Phoenix strongly opposed the charter. He said the Board of Selectmen “hand-picked” the committee, although he acknowledged some of the committee members were “very well intentioned.” He said an elected commission should have been formed to do the work. “It’s about taking a say away from the voters,” he said.
Both Phoenix and Elinor Kelliher said the boards and committees would be “beholden” to the town council and not free to make independent decisions.
Timothy Donnelly said the town should move toward an open Town Meeting, rather than eliminating it altogether. He said 292 towns in the state use Town Meeting, some larger than Ludlow. Further, he espoused the benefits of being able to petition for an article to appear on a warrant and the ability for a resident to call a Town Meeting, provided the petition received enough signatures.
Margaret Szlosek said removing Town Meeting would take away the ability of residents to debate matters, while Peter Karalekas called Town Meeting “the court of last resort” for rejecting businesses and developments. Karalekas also said the Charter Committee “has thrown [Town Clerk Kim Batista] under the bus,” by recommending a move to appointed positions.
School Committee Chair Sarah Bowler shared that her committee had unanimously voted against advancing the charter because of a provision that the town council president would also be a voting member of the School Committee. Charter Committee member Martin Fanning had explained that the move was an attempt to ease the divide between the School Committee and the Board of Selectmen, but Bowler pointed out that the person might not have the knowledge or background to weigh in on school matters.
A few people spoke in favor of the article. Debra Bonzek said, “Not everybody is made to be an elected official,” adding that she did not run to be a precinct member, but instead was able to fill an opening as a write-in. She said there were “not a lot of people getting involved.”
Charter Committee member Christopher Pelletier also said there was “severely low” turnout at Town Meeting. Of the 109 precinct voter positions, 71 voters came to the meeting. He said this meant that those 71 of the town’s roughly 15,000 registered voters were making decisions for the town. When it came to those decisions, Pelletier said, “Every time an initiative comes up, Ludlow gets a case of the NIMBYs,” using an acronym that means “not in my back yard.”
Fanning said he doubted that an elected commission would have made dramatically different recommendations than the Charter Committee as they would have spoken to many of the same people and reviewed much of the same information. In fact, an elected charter commission with a similar charge recommended a town council and mayor form of government 15 years ago. That proposal was also voted down at Town Meeting.
Joseph Santos said he loves Town Meeting but noted the idea of reorganizing the governmental structure resurfaces every couple of decades “because we have issues that are not being addressed.” He said that as an elected body, a town council would be accountable to voters.
Before declaring the motion failed, Moderator Michael Szlosek conducted a standing vote due to what he called the “serious” nature of the motion.
Another deeply controversial issue, Articles 9 and 10 proposed a bylaw to regulate solar energy battery storage systems and where they can be located. Phoenix, who is the Planning Board chair, explained that the article was not related to any one project, but was designed to “protect the town” so that the state does not “rubber stamp” future projects.
Town counsel Brian Winner further explained that solar battery systems had been granted “Dover protected use” status, meaning they can be placed anywhere unless there is a local bylaw regulating them.
Despite this, several residents came to the microphone to speak against a project they had heard rumors about. Goncalves and Selectman James Gennette acknowledged that a company had informally approached the town. Goncalves reiterated that the bylaw was to prevent the state from “force-feeding” such a project to the town, while Gennette explained that with the proposed bylaw in place, abutters would need to be notified.
The major sticking point for most of the people who opposed the bylaw was that it allowed systems greater than 250 kWh to be placed in agricultural zones.
Several residents expressed concerns that agricultural land is limited in town and that battery storage systems could be dangerous to the health of the land and water.
Phoenix explained that most solar arrays are located on agricultural land and the energy storage would need to be located nearby. Pelletier said he has two “massive” solar arrays near his property in an agricultural zone and considers battery storage “a natural extension” of the arrays.
One resident, who said he was the town’s last full-time farmer, said, “This is not some passive solar field. You may as well bury nuclear fuel rods out there.”
Phoenix made a motion from the floor to amend the bylaw to exclude the large battery systems from being sited in agricultural zones. The amended articles passed.
The only other article to fail was Article 6, which sought to borrow up to $5 million for renovation of Whitney Park. The town had been awarded a $500,000 state grant, provided the town voted to fund the remainder of the project.
Board of Selectmen Chair Derek DeBarge laid out the details of the renovation, which included parking spaces, demolition of the tennis courts, updated, ADA-compliant playground equipment, a basketball court, pickleball courts and a pavilion. The fields would remain undisturbed and work on the Recreation Department building, which also houses the summer camp program, would be part of a future second phase.
Richard Oliveira said state Rep. Aaron Saunders (D-Belchertown) and state Sen. Jake Oliveira (D-Ludlow) secured the grant money, and told his fellow precinct members, “Don’t blow it.”
Police Chief Daniel Valadas railed against borrowing the money, saying he had been asking to hire more officers. “My Police Department is on a shoestring,” he said. “I’ve been told for four and a half years, ‘We can’t do it.’”
DeBarge admonished the chief, “Your budget is not a part of the article.”
Town Administrator Marc Strange said the town would start paying back the debt in fiscal year 2027 and said there would be increased revenue from Mill 8 and savings realized from changes to the trash contract by then. However, he acknowledged the tight town budget and said, “It’s a choice. There’s no question about it.”
Ultimately, it was a choice voters decided not to take.
With 40 people for the improvements and 24 against, the measure did not reach the two-thirds requirement for passage.
