July 17, 2025 by Mary Power
“We must shift our mindset away from designing an ideal facility that aims to meet every possible need and then some, to instead developing a realistic, right-sized solution that can actually win the necessary two-thirds Town Meeting approval and majority ballot vote… a successful project must be well-designed, responsive to all citizen input, and politically and fiscally viable”.
As the Town moves ahead with the design of the new Center for Active Living, I sent the letter below to the Select Board on July 2.
Dear Bill, Liz, and Julie:
In the fall of 2020, the Town held a Special Town Meeting to seek approval for the purchase of land for a new public safety facility. While the vote ultimately passed, it did so by a narrow margin. Many citizens voiced concerns—chief among them being the overall project cost, other Town capital needs, and the resulting pressure of additional operating expenses for a new and larger facility.
Following the meeting, the Select Board directed the Town Administrator to ask the Building Committee to reevaluate and reduce the proposed size of the facility. This directive was in response to public input and informed by some comparative data showing that the initial design exceeded the size of similar projects in neighboring towns.
The result was a 16% reduction in the building’s footprint, a change that proved pivotal. This revision was socialized as part of the communications leading up to votes and I believe was critical in securing Town Meeting and ballot approval for the tax increase required to finance the project. It demonstrated that the Town heard community concerns and responded thoughtfully – striking the balance that reflects the consensus-driven approach that has long defined our approach to major initiatives.
I strongly believe a similar reassessment is necessary for the proposed Center for Active Living. At Town Meeting, citizens voiced similar concerns to those the Board heard in 2020, and vote margins were again narrow. Additionally, ballot box margins are typically tighter than Town Meeting votes.
The Building Committee and Council on Aging remain firmly committed to a 28,000-square-foot design. The building size seems to be driven by an “if you build it, they will come” mindset. While well-intentioned, I am concerned this assumption overlooks the diverse reality of our senior population—many citizens cannot, or simply do not wish to, access services by traveling to a central building. A facility-centered approach risks underutilization and fails to reflect the diverse needs and preferences of older residents, many of whom would benefit more from outreach, mobile, or home-based services. It will be harder to fund these new services when the Town is paying to heat and operate a 28,000 square foot facility. Recent personal experience reminds me that thoughtful planning for our senior population should consider not just square footage, but how best to deliver services where and how they’re actually needed. It’s clear that without direction from the Select Board, a meaningful reconsideration of the project’s scale will not happen. And the earlier this guidance is given in the design process, the greater flexibility the Building Committee will have to address it. I believe this will lead to a better outcome all the way around.
This kind of measured, responsive course correction is not without precedent. We’ve seen it before—not only with the public safety facility, but also in the development of East School and Hingham Middle School. In the case of the school projects however, adjustments came later in the process, when some preferred value-engineering options were no longer available because they would have required a more substantial redesign. As a result, less desirable compromises had to be made.
We have an opportunity now to act earlier – and I would suggest more effectively. I believe there is a real risk that if the Town attempts to push this project forward without addressing the concerns voiced at Town Meeting, it will fail at Town Meeting or the ballot box. That would send a discouraging message to the community—especially seniors—and leave us stuck with the status quo: a 5,000-square-foot facility that everyone agrees is inadequate. And I’m not convinced that the unacceptability of the status quo will be sufficient to overcome the citizen concerns that have been raised.
We must shift our mindset away from designing an ideal facility that aims to meet every possible need and then some, to instead developing a realistic, right-sized solution that can actually win the necessary two-thirds Town Meeting approval and majority ballot vote. As we’ve seen with major initiatives, a successful project must be well-designed, responsive to all citizen input, and politically and fiscally viable. That’s where you come in.
I urge the Select Board to once again lead in guiding a responsible, responsive, and community- aligned design process—just as it did with the public safety facility. Doing so will help build trust, improve affordability, and increase the likelihood of achieving the necessary community support.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Mary Power