Charlton Select Board hears heated debate over due diligence funding for proposed senior center at former Charlton Furniture site

The Charlton Select Board on Tuesday heard extensive testimony and divided input over whether the town should spend up to $50,000 on engineering, environmental and design studies to evaluate buying the former Charlton Furniture building on Dressler Hill Road as a new senior/community center.

Town Administrator Andrew said the feasibility committee recommended the town "appropriate $50,000 in total to support due diligence assessment in preparation for further consideration of acquiring property for this purchase." He outlined estimated costs: a property-conditions assessment $5,000–$10,000; a Massachusetts 21E hazardous-materials assessment $2,500–$5,000; an appraisal $2,500–$5,000; and schematic architectural design $15,000–$30,000.

The recommendation came from a committee formed three years ago to study options for a new senior center and community center. Pat Stockwell, chair of the senior/community center feasibility committee, told the board, "I've been on the committee since it was created by this board 3 years ago," and that the panel has evaluated multiple options before identifying the Dressler Hill Road property as a viable candidate.

Nut graf: The question before the board was procedural — whether to ask the town’s voters to finance the next phase of due diligence through a capital article and, if so, to place a debt-exclusion or other funding question on an upcoming warrant. Supporters urged the board to let voters decide after a modest study; opponents said the town faces competing capital priorities and that authorization to spend $50,000 now would be premature.

Supporters and public speakers said the current senior center — sited in the Town Hall basement — is overcrowded and lacks accessible parking and other amenities. Several speakers asked the board to place the $50,000 appropriation on the fall town-meeting warrant or on a debt-exclusion ballot so residents could vote. Resident speakers described a growing senior population (committee members said the town’s senior cohort is increasing) and noted the building has about 12,000 square feet with an additional roughly 3,000-square-foot annex on the same parcel, which could be used as part of a consolidated facility.

Several Select Board members voiced fiscal caution. Select Board member David repeatedly prioritized other capital needs, saying public safety and school facilities must come first and that the town lacks resources to commit to a major purchase without clear funding for construction and long-term debt service. Other board members said the committee, council on aging and town administrator had followed the proper process and that a $50,000 study would only inform voters and the finance committee before any final commitment.

Members of the Council on Aging and the feasibility committee described the $50,000 as a due-diligence outlay intended to avoid larger mistakes later. Committee advisor Michelle Drum (Council on Aging director, advisor to the feasibility committee) said the group tried “to be as fiscally responsible as we could be” while addressing seniors’ needs. Committee members described prior work: multiple site reviews, alternatives (new construction, lease, acquisition) and outreach.

Board action: The Select Board did not approve the $50,000 appropriation at the Sept. 9 meeting. After extended discussion and public comment, the board did not put a motion that committed the town to fund the study that evening. Several board members encouraged proponents to seek support at town meeting or secure a finance-committee recommendation before bringing a binding warrant article back to the board.

Ending: Supporters said they would continue outreach to secure a finance-committee review and a town vote; opponents said they will continue to press priorities such as schools and public safety. The feasibility committee and council on aging said they will pursue the next administrative and finance steps necessary to place a funding article before voters if they can marshal support.