On Tuesday night, the 160 seats in the Marion Music Hall were full of residents and public servants. This meeting was for the Marine Resource Commission’s presentation on their long-developed Harbor Management Plan.

            MRC Chair Vincent J. Malkoski, Jr. began the meeting by joking, “this is a better crowd than they had at the candidate night.” He went on to stress staying on the topic of the management plan, saying, “if anyone is here to discuss current issues with management, that’s not gonna happen. This is not the place – this night is only for planning.” He finished by saying, “this is big picture stuff, strategic planning.”

            Shannon Hogan from the Urban Harbors Institute of UMass Boston then spoke. Her organization is working with the MRC to create the plan. She said, “this is a great crowd,” and noted the point of the meeting was to gather input on the plan for “the goals and vision for tackling the challenges facing the harbor and waterways.” On their long-term timeline, the group has already met with the MRC with Hogan adding they will have many more meetings going forward.

            She noted the meeting will be unorthodox, with breakout tables around the room with members of UHI and MRC at each. She said they have “opportunities for you to go around and share your thoughts and inputs. What would you like the harbor to look like in the future?” She recommended going to each of the four tables to get a cumulative look of the plan.

            On the area effected by the plan itself, she said it was mainly around Marion Harbor proper, though she noted other areas upstream are still important and it is not a hard border.

            Before splitting off to breakout tables, there was an open time for questions. The first question was levied toward the Urban Harbors Institute, asking who or what other towns they work with. Hogan noted a few: Nantucket, on updating harbor management plan which they also did in 2009 for them, Mashpee on Cape Cod, where they’re making their first harbor plan, Manchester-by-the-Sea’s harbor plan, and Swansea’s harbor management plan which they completed last year.

            The next question was “what is the impotence? what exactly are you trying to fix?”

MRC Chair Malkoski said, “we’re not trying to fix anything.” Though he said issues may arise with fisherman, boats, or residents on the water. He said MRC’s job is to manage the harbor and balance the needs of the many different groups. He stressed, “our job is to create balance and advice the Select Board.” He emphasized the MRC being a “guidance body” whose members’ origins vary.

            He brought up the Bird Island Lighthouse, stating it “needs work,” though the costs are not in the budget. He rhetorically asked, “are we going to restore it? Are we going to remove the historic parts and let nature reclaim it? I don’t know – if we have a harbor management plan, it’s positioned in the hierarchy of the plan.”

            The final question asked of grants awarded to other communities as well as where the money for this program comes from. UHI representative Kristin Uiterwyk answered, saying the town applied for funding through the Seaport Economic Council through the state and won the funding. Recently, she mentioned projects that have been funded. One being an eel grass management plan on Nantucket for $50,000-$60,000. Also noted were expansive dredging projects, new maritime facilities, public access and signage projects, and others. She stressed the scale of grants varies greatly.

            Then Shannon Hogan said, “we’ll let the fun begin,” as they allowed the full room to meander between the four breakout tables. The four tables were 1. Boating and Navigation, 2. Water Quality and Natural Resources, 3. Shoreline Access, and 4. Climate Change. Residents were encouraged to move between the tables, ask questions, and offer input on the plan.

Marion Harbor Management Plan Kickoff Meeting

By Sam Bishop

            The Rochester Select Board and Finance Committee closed the 33-article warrant for the May 18 Annual Town Meeting on April 22 after debating its finer points and learning an important equipment donation intended for the event will not be used that night.

            In response to the recent announcement that the town has received an anonymous, $1,800 grant of 400 remote, electronic voting clickers for Town Meeting voters, Finance Committee member and Town Moderator David Arancio said the devices will not be utilized this year.

            “I’ve decided not to use the clickers that were so generously donated to the town,” Arancio announced as the meeting was concluding. “This equipment will require training and testing. This is not the place to use this equipment as a training ground.” Residents and officials who were gathered in the meeting room for the warrant review voiced a collective sigh of relief, obviously agreeing this was a good decision.

            Attendees were equally attentive as the two boards reviewed warrant revisions. First, the Select Board members agreed to revise Article 17, which would transfer $10,000 from free cash for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing kitchen equipment at the Council on Aging Senior Center, by adding the language that its expenditures be subject to approval by a joint meeting of the Select Board and the Council on Aging board. The Select Board and the Finance Committee then both recommended the article for the warrant.

            Next, the two panels revisited Article 19, which would transfer $250,000 from free cash to supplement the public school system’s Special Education out-of-district tuitions, a cost that has risen dramatically this year to $1,100,000. Last week, residents argued that because the town is expecting a state earmark of $250,000 to reimburse this cost, the town should weigh in how all this money be spent should the expected amount be received. This week, Town Administrator Cameron Durant, attending the meeting remotely on Zoom, advised that Town Counsel has recommended no such change to the article’s language. The schools have legal right to spend in their own way all that they receive. The Select Board approved placing the article on the warrant as is, and the FinCom voted to support it.

            Then came their review of Article 20, which would transfer from free cash $100,000 to establish a Special Education Fund that could be used for this type of future expense. Before this vote, Select Board Chair Adam Murphy suggested the $100,000 that in Article 21 proposes funding unemployment compensation expenses with free cash, should instead be applied to the school deficit that will be laying off four Rochester Memorial School teachers in this next fiscal year because of the Special Education deficit. “This could supplement teachers for the classroom instead of their unemployment,” he said.

            Rochester Memorial School Committee Chair Katherine Duggan agreed with Murphy. These teachers will know their positions are potentially for one year only, she said, and would know to start job hunting. It would negate the need for the unemployment expense.

            This suggestion, however, failed to be endorsed. Durant argued the money would fund the positions for one year unless other funds become available next year. It relies on one-time funds. Select Board member Paul Ciaburri noted the unemployment funds will be for layoffs townwide, not just the schools. The two panels agreed to place this article on the warrant as is.

            The two boards then swiftly endorsed the other article they had slated to further review, Article 21, which proposes transferring $100,000 from free cash to fund unemployment compensation expenses.

            The Annual Town Meeting is scheduled for May 18 starting at 7:00 pm at Rochester Memorial School, 16 Pine Street.

Rochester Select Board/Finance Committee

By Michael J. DeCicco