To The Editor:

The Marion Special Town Meeting was held on October 26 to vote on Article S4 to transfer $50,000 toward a $200,000 grant from the Buzzards Bay and Narragansett Estuary Program concerning a proposed sewer project to “possibly” eliminate nitrogen discharge from 31 homes in Aucoot Cove and 151 homes in Mattapoisett (Mattapoisett?).

So many questions asked were left unanswered that town meeting voted to table the article until more discussion ensued. Too much money spent on an eventual multi-million dollar program without all the facts.

Town Meetings are the oldest form of grassroots democracy. They allow citizens to access their municipal government and express their concerns about town affairs. Apparently, Marion’s elected selectmen do not realize that town meeting has the final authority to accept, reject or modify the action sought by any article presented. It was an approved vote to dismiss the article. End of subject.

YET, six days later, the board of selectmen, overrode the vote and went ahead against the wishes of the residents of Marion. Shame on them. They explained it wouldn’t cost the taxpayers a penny. Really? It would be nice to know how this is to be done. And if that is the case, why was it ever brought up to a vote? And how many times in the future will money be allocated on programs against the voters of Marion that are not vetted properly.

Let them know it is your taxpayer money and you want it to be spent on your terms. And you don’t want to lose a freedom which is ours to possess.

Ruth Nicolaci, Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.

To the Editor:

Marion voters face a conundrum on allocating scarce capital resources. The Town House Committee has proposed two options regarding the Town House restoration. This discretionary spending proposal competes with a mandatory capital spending compliance requirement for the renewal of the sewer plant’s EPA discharge permit.

The Town House also competes with payment of existing debt obligations from past projects, already committed projects, forecasted spending on other Town capital needs such as a new DPW garage, and unfunded employee retirement obligations.

Marion has very little capacity to fund capital spending from free cash only – about $500,000 in a good year. Debt becomes the major source of financing capital spending.

The mandatory EPA permit compliance problem now hangs over the Town with the cost of the draft permit compliance estimated by Town’s consulting engineers at $34 million. This is the best forecasting number available at this time and will change when the final permit requirements become known.

A companion problem is the management of the considerable inflow and infiltration entering the sewer system. Known as I&I, this is ground water entering the sewer system though manholes, leaky sewer pipes, improper sump pump and other drainage connected to the Town’s sewer lines.

The $18 million five-phase Village drainage, paving and sewer project will help solve some, but not all, of the I&I issues such as the problem emanating from Creek Road. The reality of the problem requires the two projects to run in tandem as I&I management will be an EPA permit compliance issue. This increases the mandatory spending to $52 million. Yes, there are cost reductions available from this Village project such as the elimination of granite curbing and fancy lighting now found on South Street.

The Town House renovation, options 1 and 2, is discretionary spending. The spending forecast is $64.4 million if the $12.4 million option is selected or $80 million if the $28 million option being advocated in a recent letter to Sippican Week, The Wanderer and The Sentinel is adopted.

Add approximately $27 million in other capital spending projects identified by the Capital Committee, including a place holder for a needed DPW garage, and the capital spending forecast increases to $107 million. Add this on top of the existing debt of $32 million issued to fund past capital spending such as the school and sewer plant and the forecast again increases $139 million. Again add the estimated $18 million of unfunded retirement liabilities and the $157 million target number for Marion’s “Current and Future Obligations, Commitments and Forecasts” is reached. This target forecast fits within a reasonable statistically significant forecast range of between $133.6 million to $180.8 million.

Also to be considered are the statutory debt limitations capping the amount of debt the Town can issue for capital projects. It is clear the debt caps are going to be an issue. This also becomes the harbinger of the future Town sewer war and the degree Tabor, as a large sewer user, participates in paying its share of the financing of the sewer plant upgrades.

The debt accumulation adversely impacts the Town’s bond rating and future cost of borrowing. Grant money will not be significant in funding capital projects. Low cost financing through the state for the sewer plant and related project is “nice,” but the reality is it’s still debt that has to be paid back. These debt amortizations, as we are now paying for the school and sewer plant, usually last a generation.

Last year’s Town meeting approved $500,000 for the design of the Town House proposals. My understanding is that $100,000 has been spent to date. At this point, a moratorium on Town House spending should be imposed until such time as better definitions on the EPA permit compliance costs are understood.

The target $157 million Capital spending and unfunded obligations forecast is material for many of Marion’s 2,500 taxpayers. To illustrate the magnate of this amount, this equates to approximately a 60% tax increase if these target costs were to be funded for 20 years at 4% amortization. The estimated tax increases on an individual project basis are 15% for the sewer plant upgrades, 5.6% for the election of the $12.4 million Town House option, and 15.2% for election of the $28 million Town House option. Add the $28 million Town House Option together with the sewer plant and the tax increase is 27.7%. This is a permanent tax increase and depending on its structure can form a new base for the annual Prop 2.5% tax increase.

The issue here is the magnitude of the costs now coming before Marion taxpayers, not the precision nor the timing inherent in any forecasting.

There is no municipal financial capacity to fund large discretionary capital projects such as the restoration of the Town House and other gifted municipal buildings. The use of private money needs to be a key factor and the cornerstone for the restoration and maintenance of Marion’s historic structures. The Town House committee needs to focus on this type of funding to effectuate either of its recommended proposals.

For the folks in the Marion community interested in community preservation, the reality is exploring private money alternatives. It’s been successful in other communities, and with creativity it should be very successful in Marion. The resources and the talent are here if the community zeitgeist wishes to use it. At this point, the window of the municipal treasury appears to be closed.

If the zest for private money does not materialize, then plan on some window replacements, a new boiler, and paint job as this is all the municipal treasury can absorb for Town House maintenance.

Ted North, Marion

The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence.