A light February 14 agenda for the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission was heavy with Enforcement Order follow-ups.

            The commission’s contract agent, Brandon Faneuf, reported on four previously issued Enforcement Orders, not the least of which is the subdivision known as Brandt Beach Village. Commission member Trevor Frances had photographed site conditions that concerned the commissioners, displaying the apparent absence of a conditioned turtle barrier and collapsed erosion controls.

            Faneuf said that he had had a conversation with the town’s peer-review consultant for the project, Ken Motta of Field Engineering. Conservation Commission Chairman Mike King stated that it was necessary to have an all-inclusive discussion with the commission, property owners and Motta to ensure that Motta’s checklist of to-do items is being addressed.

            Faneuf questioned septic systems associated with the project, commenting that it is necessary to confirm that house lots in jurisdictional areas would be adequately serviced by the community septic system. Faneuf also said it is an open question as to whether or not individual notices of intent must be filed for lots in Phase 2.

            An Enforcement Order for unpermitted vista pruning at 58 Pico Beach Road on property owned by Peter Franceschina was discussed, as no word had thus far been received regarding the progress of restoration in the area where cutting had taken place.

            It was noted that when the order was sent to Franceschina last November, the property owner had met with the commission and understood why such cutting was against wetland regulations and/or the need to secure local approvals. Since that time, nothing had been heard from Franceschina. The commission would follow up with a telephone call, it was determined, before taking any further action.

            Another Enforcement Order pending completion had been issued to Brendan Talty for an unpermitted shed. King said a call to the property owner is needed to ascertain his steps in bringing the construction of a shed in a jurisdictional area into compliance.

            In other business, the commission met with Mark Connon for a pier located at 65 Mattapoisett Neck Road. King said the commission had no issues with the plan of record as long as the required Chapter 91 permitting was secured. “It’s in keeping with the waterfront in that area,” he said. Further action was pending the issue of a waterways license.

            A request for a Certificate of Compliance requested by David Meeker, 93 Mattapoisett Neck Road, was tabled until such time as Meeker can certify that a replication area has been successfully completed. Meeker said that he was not aware of the open order of conditions when he purchased the property. King commented, “That happens all the time.”

            There was a discussion between King and Faneuf as to the necessity of the property owner hiring a wetland scientist to confirm compliance or other measures needed to secure compliance. It was unclear to King if the order of conditions stipulated such certification. In the end it was determined that an expert is indeed needed to weigh in on the project.

            A Request for Determination of Applicability by Waldron Realty Trust for the construction of a shed in a flood zone at 32 Pico Beach Road received a negative decision.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for Monday, February 28, at 6:30 pm.

Mattapoisett Conservation Commission

By Marilou Newell

For some time, Mattapoisett Capital Planning Committee Chairman Chuck McCullough has expressed the need for fiscal planning and oversight by the town for the bike path, which has been rolling through the community for more than 20 years primarily being managed by the town’s Bike Path Committee and Select Board via the town administrator. Now its financial planning and debt tracking would be aided by the Capital Planning Committee.

            On February 14, members of the Mattapoisett Bike Path Study Committee and Friends of the Mattapoisett Bike Path met with Capital Planning. On hand to navigate through the trail of grants, donations, matching funds and easements were Bike Path Committee Chairman Steve Kelleher and FMBP Chairman Rene Pothier. Also adding to the conversation was longtime advocate and FMBP member Bonne DeSousa.

            In a previous meeting held with the Community Preservation Committee (also chaired by McCullough) on February 11, the bike path consortium applied for a $120,000 recreational grant, money planned for necessary predesign must-haves such as easements and appraisals. That sum would become critical to the entire remaining bike path development, the CPC would hear, and would appear on financial spreadsheets provided to Capital Planning.

            The bike path team discussed in brief terms the challenges ahead such as securing the CPA grant, securing other grants for construction of Phases 2a and 2b, and a myriad of “soft cost” non-construction related matters such has wetland studies.

            After reading a letter from Representative Bill Straus in support of the CPA grant request, the conversation turned to the numbers.

            Pothier and Kelleher offered the following for FY23: $489,000, the town’s match previously approved through Town Meeting for work associated with the Industrial Drive improvements; $500,000 for a portion of the Phase 2b Industrial Drive pathway; and $150,000 of which $120,000 is proposed from the CPA grant and matched by $30,000 in FMBP donations.

            In FY24, $285,000 will be needed and proposed to be secured from grants and town match for Phase 2a design, project management and soft costs not associated with construction, and $1,000,000 proposed to be secured by town match and grants.

             FY25 is forecasted to need $30,000 from grants and town match for additional Phase 2a design, project management and soft costs not associated with construction, and $1,000,000 from grants and town match for Phase 2a construction.

            It is currently planned that in FY26 the project will be rolling towards completion while needing $30,000 from grants and town match for remaining project management and soft costs not associated with construction, $1,000,000 for Phase 2a construction, $752,000 for Phase 2b design and construction, and $500,000 for final segments of Phase 2a.

            All totaled over the next four fiscal cycles, the financial documents provided by the bike path consortium estimate that Phases 2a and 2b, also known as the “last mile,” will cost $5,796,000 anticipated to be funded by a variety of grants and town matches.

            During their meeting with the Community Preservation Committee, the bike path advocates explained that before any other monies can be sought through grant applications, much needed predesign work is required that will include conceptual designs for crossing at North Street onto Industrial Drive and easements through the Park Street neighborhood (Phase 2a). Nothing more could be advanced until these stated tasks are completed.

            McCullough referred to the CPA grant as a “stone in the funnel;” no other funds could flow in until these monies are secured. DeSousa also mentioned the need for a consultant to be hired by the town to oversee the completion of the bike path, given the complexity and time investment that a project of this size would require.

            Also coming before the Capital Planning Committee was Harbormaster Jamie McIntosh. For FY23, McIntosh listed: $794,947 needed for design work for repairs to Long Wharf; $30,000 for a harbor management plan; $70,000 for new docks and floats; $18,457 for a patrol boat; and $12,000 for security camaras. For FY24, the list includes: $537,500 for Long Wharf construction costs (a sum repeated for fiscal cycles through FY28 expected to be paid via debt exclusion); $100,000 for repairs to Holmes Wharf; and another $18,457 earmarked for a patrol boat paid via the Enterprise Fund. FY23 requests total out to $941,382 and FY24 at $673,935.

            The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Community Preservation Committee is planned for Friday, February 18, at 5:30 pm. The Mattapoisett Capital Planning Committee plans to meet again on Monday, February 28, at 6:00 pm.

Mattapoisett Capital Planning/Community Preservation Committees

By Marilou Newell

            Henri Renauld, Mattapoisett Water and Sewer superintendent, met with the Mattapoisett Finance Committee on February 10 to review his FY23 operating budgets for the two enterprise funds.

            The committee members heard about the challenges both departments are facing due to aging infrastructure throughout the community. They also heard about possible expansion of the water and the sewer services to areas of the town not currently connected to municipal services.

            Renauld said that the Main, Beacon, Water Street and Marion Road roadway improvement project is currently on the Capital Plan for 2026 but that funding would have to be secured from grants and bonding instruments. Tight coordination of not only local services such as water and sewer but also utilities and subcontractors would be needed.

            In terms of long-range expansion possibilities, Renauld said that extended water service along Brandt Island Road and Mattapoisett Neck Road are on the radar and that a sewer expansion into the Pease’s Point neighborhood would be put before the residents at Town Meeting in an effort to secure a two-thirds acceptance of the accompanying betterment fees.

            When asked about the long-awaited improvements to upper Pearl Street from Route 6 to Hammond Street, Renauld said the pipes, materials that were in part responsible for delays in construction had already been purchased and that he has money left over in a warrant article ($135,000) that would be spent on the project.

            The unexpected and unfunded repairs now needed at the Oakland sewer pump station were also discussed. Renauld said that five manholes need complete reconstruction and repair and would be shovel-ready for grant applications and or bonding by next fall. Town Administrator Mike Lorenco said that ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funding could be used for the project, but that presently the Select Board is weighing all options for those federal funds. Mattapoisett’s share is anticipated to be roughly $1,800,000, Lorenco stated.

            The Water Department’s FY22 salaries will top out at $558,238 and increase to $570,055 for FY23. Expenses for FY22 are projected to be $987,222 versus the FY23 plan of $1,016,869 at a difference of 2.7 percent.

            Sewer’s financials show FY22 wages at $214,591 versus $219,274 for FY23 and expenses for FY22 at $611,445 against FY23 planned at $751,755. There is an overall increase of 17.5 percent. The increases are primarily fueled by sewer treatment and infrastructural expenses and a contractual agreement for plant improvements.

            Highway Surveyor Garrett Bauer also met with the members of the Finance Committee on this night. After briefly reviewing the department’s operating budget, he was asked to explain a $5,000 increase in the line items titled “elected official – highway surveyor.” Bauer said that he was doing the same job his predecessor had done and had taken only “three days off” since being elected.

            Fincom Chairman Pat Donoghue asked if Bauer would be meeting with the Select Board, which had set the salary at $75,000 in FY22. He responded that he would be. Lorenco commented that when the salary had been set, Bauer’s experience level had not been fully tested but that “Garrett has put his good foot forward,” noting he is responsible for all the roads in town. Bauer’s predecessor Barry Denham held the position for 15 years and reached a salary of $90,958 prior to his 2021 retirement.

            The Highway Department’s operating budget for FY22 should stand at $749,800. The proposed budget of $772,600 for FY23 constitutes an increase of 3.4 percent.

            The Mattapoisett Finance Committee was scheduled to meet again on Wednesday, February 16.

Mattapoisett Finance Committee

By Marilou Newell