The overwhelming sentiment of those attending Mattapoisett’s May 10 Town Meeting: Let’s get it done. While a few articles brought out some questions and concerns, none was so unpalatable as to be kicked to the street. All articles passed rather smoothly through the voting process, including Article Two, the $29,894,778 General Operating Budget.
Just prior to that vote, Barry Denham, soon-to-be-retired highway surveyor, stood up and spoke against a decrease in salary planned for his replacement when Article 1: Elected Officials Compensation was to be opened. In support of keeping the salary at the current $90,958 level versus decreasing it down to $75,000, Denham said that the surveyor doesn’t get overtime pay or sick days and he felt that a $15,000 decrease is unfair. The article, in its totality, including the new rate of pay, was passed 98 for and 4 against.
Of all the articles seeing some need for discussion, the one that inspired the most emotion was the one viewed as a new revenue money maker – a meals tax. Championing Article 18, which passed with a majority vote of 90-18, was Town Administrator Mike Lorenco. Having been charged by the Select Board almost since his first day on the job with finding new revenue sources, Lorenco has sought to bring a small local meals tax to that effort. As he had previously explained at numerous public meetings, the proposal would mean a 75 cent or 0.75 percent tax. Simply put, 75 cents on a $100 meal ticket.
Select Board member Jordan Collyer said that nearly all surrounding towns have a similar local meals tax, some 75 percent of all cities and towns in the commonwealth.
Lorenco explained that local restaurants would not be taking on more work or paying the tax themselves but simply would be passing the collected monies onto the state as they currently do. The state would then pass along those monies to the town. Douglas Schneider had voiced his concern that restaurants have suffered enough from the pandemic and should not be burdened with additional paperwork or with paying increased taxes.
Lorenco explained that the state does not allow the use of new revenue to be used for operating expenses, that the estimated $90,000 in new money would be earmarked for special projects such as roadwork, and that the tax would start being collected in October. The article passed 90-18.
FEMA’s flood plan mapping Article 21 titled Zoning Bylaw Flood Maps and Flood Regulations required time in which voters questioned the intentions of FEMA with respect to insurance increases and new lands noted in the maps. The article asked voters to amend existing bylaws by deleting the current Article 8 in its entirety and replacing it with a new bylaw, the purpose of which among other things would be to avoid the loss of utility services by flooding and to reduce damage to public and private property from flooding.
Section 8.8 of the new bylaw establishes that “issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 to $100 of insurance coverage,” and that “such construction below the base flood level increases risks to life and property.”
Several voters objected to the possibility of insurance premium increases. Schneider, standing again to speak, took umbrage to Section 8.10, which noted that other approvals such as Planning Board site plan review may be required for any changes to structures or lands within the new mapping plan. “This is another layer of bureaucracy,” he said. “It’s an extra burden on the homeowner.” Schneider also stated that the Conservation Commission is already the oversight committee for work within flood zones and thus changes within the flood zone are already being reviewed. The new bylaw would put the Planning Board in the position of oversight to all changes within the flood zone.
Planning Board Administrator Mike Gagne reminded the voters that, if the bylaw amendments were not adopted by the town, “insurance will be cancelled in Mattapoisett in July.” The article requiring a two-thirds vote passed 64-15.
Earlier in the proceedings, Chairman of the Capital Planning and Community Preservation Act Committees Chuck McCullough spoke on behalf of Article 10 Acceptance of the Report of Capital Planning Committee and Articles 13, 14, and 15, representing three proposed grant allocations from the CPA funds.
Regarding the Capital Planning Committee report, McCullough explained in detail why the committee was asking for more time to prepare the annual report. He said, “The role of Capital Planning is to forecast the future needs … fund the most pressing needs, [and] look at funding sources.” He said that, given the committee is now filled with “new member energy” and that the challenges lay ahead for the funding of large projects such as culvert repairs and bike path maintenance, the committee wants more time to complete its research in such matters.
McCullough said that for years many large ticket projects such as roadway repairs and improvements and the management of the municipal fleet, as well as the beforementioned bike path, had never hit their radar. He now feels as the committee does that all spending over $10,000 should filter through the committee for review and funding feasibility.
The items listed for FY22 funding were typified by McCullough as light: $42,889 for local schools’ phones; $18,500 for library roof and window repairs; $85,000 for sidearm mover attachment; $14,500 for fire department boat pontoons; $54,000 for design development for Long Wharf repairs and upgrades; $25,000 for floor tiles for local schools; and $55,000 for a new police cruiser.
Article 10 passed, authorizing Capital Planning to issue its report at a fall special town meeting.
McCullough then moved onto Articles 13, 14, and 15, grant applications for CPA funds. All were moved by majority vote. Those were $35,000 for repairs to the entrance way of the Mattapoisett Museum, $20,000 for the digitization of Cushing Cemetery records, and $20,000 for the ORR press box, contingent upon an equal sum being approved by voters in Rochester and Marion.
Other articles of note included the passing by two-thirds vote for Article 19, Town Road Improvement Plan Funding in the amount of $450,000 for the development of 75 percent design for the village streets project, and Article 17, Authorization of Use of Grant Anticipation Notes for Town Projects. Article 17 is a funding vehicle that allows the town to pay for a project immediately after receiving notification of an award but before the actual monies are received.
While four voters disagreed with Article 20 that asked voters to change gender-specific titles such as selectmen and chairman to gender neutral terms like “select board” and simply “chair,” 104 voters thought the time had come to make the change.
Article 24, Transfer of Funds for New Project Funding, received approval from the voters, 77-2, after a presentation by Water and Sewer Superintendent Henri Renauld, who told the voters that savings in the amount of $644,944 should be transferred to design costs associated with running a new sewer line across the Eel Pond breach. He said that the proposed construction would bury the new sewer line down 17 feet below sea level via directional boring. Renauld explained that, once the line reaches Reservation Road, several decisions would have to be made including whether or not to send the pipe along Reservation Road to Route 6 or along the YMCA property.
Regarding replacing the existing sewer line currently across the breach with another sewer line in the same relative location was not as problematic as previously believed. “New materials and technologies make it possible,” Renauld said in a follow-up. He also said that the bridge for the bike path has pilings driven deep into the seafloor, reaching bedrock that would help to protect the sewer line against objects being pushed upstream in a storm.
Mattapoisett Spring Town Meeting
By Marilou Newell