By Carol Britton Meyer

The light board voted 3-2 this week to oppose the proposed joint DPW/municipal light plant facility at West Corner and related grant activity.

an aerial view of the proposed building at west corner that would combine the dpw and the light plant. it would replace the current dpw barn at 9 nantasket Avenue.

Tuesday night’s session was a follow-up to an April 16 discussion of Commissioner Jacob Vaillancourt’s resolution to withdraw the Hull Municipal Light Plant from the Coastal Zone Management grant to combine the light plant’s headquarters and the Department of Public Works into one building.

All light board members were present. Town Manager Jennifer Constable – who also is the light plant manager – was absent, as she was during the earlier discussion about this same subject. Some members of the public attended the in-person meeting at town hall.

Chair Thomas Burns stated that the impetus for scheduling this special meeting was to afford the town manager the opportunity to engage in the discussion about the resolution. The board proceeded in her absence.

“Neither myself, staff, nor counsel attended last night's meeting on the basis that we are ethically bound to ‘refrain from political activities which undermine public confidence in professional administrators,’” Constable said in an email response to a Times inquiry on Wednesday.

At Tuesday’s meeting, Commissioner Daniel Ciccariello moved to accept the resolution, subject to debate. The motion was seconded by Burns.

Click here to read the text of the light board’s resolution

During the discussion, Commissioner Patrick Cannon said while he agreed with the board’s underlying opposition to the proposed combined facility, he thought the resolution goes too far.

Burns reviewed the grant history of the project, noting that to his understanding, the CZM grant program requires support from relevant boards and departments affected by the project and that the light board was not notified about the proposed combined project in a timely fashion.

Vaillancourt explained the intent of the resolution: to require either the withdrawal of HMLP from the existing grant scope or modification of the scope so that any grant-funded work supports HMLP facility needs at 15 Edgewater Road, including the board’s previously approved new four-bay garage, rather than relocation to West Corner.

Constable contends that the light board is overstepping its authority.

“After consultation with counsel, both town counsel and light board counsel, ratepayers should be aware that the light board cannot expand its own jurisdiction or authority by simply adopting a so-called ‘resolution’ declaring it so,” Constable wrote. “In light of offers to work collaboratively with the light board on matters outside of their authority, and in light of the advisory board’s recent recommendation that the light board ‘have unbiased thought and communication between all stakeholders,’ I find the board’s majority vote especially disappointing and concerning.”

Ciccariello asked whether voting in favor of the resolution would foreclose later engagement with the town manager or the select board on this subject, or whether modifications to the project could still be negotiated after the resolution was issued.

According to Vaillancourt, the resolution gives the board leverage to negotiate, either a change in scope, a withdrawal of HMLP from the project, or a smaller award, and that without such a formal communication, the board has effectively no leverage.

Cannon said he thought that the light board’s leverage lies with the select board, which oversees the town manager, and that a meeting between the two boards should precede any letter to state agencies.

Following the discussion, Cannon moved a substitute motion that the board reaffirm its December 2025 vote of opposition to the proposed combined project and request a meeting with the select board. The substitute motion was seconded but failed on a 2-3 vote, with Cannon and Commissioner Stephanie Landry in favor and Burns, Ciccariello, and Vaillancourt opposed.

Ciccariello called for a vote on the resolution as presented, with Burns, Ciccariello, and Vaillancourt in favor, and Cannon and Landry opposed.

Like what you’re reading? Stay informed and support our work with a Hull Times subscription by clicking here.

Do you have an opinion to share? Click here to write a Letter to the Editor.