Committee members discussed acquisition strategy and liability considerations for the 2229 Main Street site, focusing on negotiation leverage, precedent and how the town’s legal exposure would be addressed in any transfer or institutional-control arrangement.

Options and legal background: Members noted the possibility of eminent domain or tax taking as negotiation positions, and that some counsel suggested testing alternatives while the DOJ and EPA process continues. The discussion included a reminder that the site’s cleanup is governed by a consent decree and that the escrowed funds and legally binding arrangements are central to assurances about follow‑through by responsible parties.

Liability and insurance: The group discussed two categories of liability: legacy liabilities arising from historical contamination (typically covered by the responsible-party settlement and consent decree) and potential claims alleging town errors in managing institutional controls. Members asked town counsel (Chris) to prepare a concise memo for the report explaining whether the town could buy insurance for institutional‑control errors and how tort claims would be handled if third parties alleged harm.

Why it matters: Acquisition strategy and liability allocation determine town financial risk, bargaining leverage in negotiations with responsible parties, and the potential cost and feasibility of future reuse scenarios.

Next steps: The task force did not adopt a single acquisition approach but agreed to leave strategic negotiation choices to counsel and the Select Board; the committee asked counsel to draft a short explanatory memo (placed in an appendix) summarizing insurance options and how negotiated protections (consent decree, escrowed funds) will limit the town’s liability.

The committee also agreed to footnote or otherwise cite specific examples of past responsible-party actions (to support confidence in cleanup under the consent decree) while avoiding overgeneralization.