The committee discussed scaling back the project’s scope to align with the first contract in a bid to make it more palatable to voters and improve chances of securing necessary funding. The North End precincts’ decisive 67% disapproval rate underscored the geographical divide in support and prompted suggestions to seek out grant money and low-interest loans to kickstart the project without full funding in place.

The urgency of addressing public health risks took center stage as members raised concerns about safe drinking water limits and the classification of certain compounds as hazardous substances. These risks, coupled with the need to upgrade septic systems to comply with the Clean Water Act, emphasized the potential impact on property values, mortgages, and insurance. The committee recognized its responsibility to better communicate these issues to the public, acknowledging previous shortcomings in conveying the gravity of the situation.

The meeting dedicated significant time to the discussion of funding avenues for the infrastructure projects. The Mass Works Grant and congressional earmarks were highlighted as potential sources of financial support. A senior living facility and office building project was considered as a way to score higher on eligibility criteria for the grant, focusing on the importance of housing and economic development projects. Additionally, there was mention of applying for a $4 million grant for a water project, a $5 million direct Congressional spending, and a $7.5 million loan commitment.

In response to the ballot results and the ongoing funding challenges, the committee proposed amending an article to reduce the requested funding to the amount necessary for the first contract, which would also potentially reduce the financial burden on residents through betterments. There was a consensus on the need for clear policies and communication to dispel confusion surrounding betterments and tie-ins.

To enhance public understanding and support, the committee discussed the creation of detailed cost breakdowns and the distribution of brochures or flyers. The use of social media was also considered as a tool to correct misinformation, with the suggestion of forming a subcommittee to manage outreach efforts and address the unauthorized use of the town logo.

The committee considered the economic impact on local businesses and the need for infrastructure development, with some members expressing doubt about the public’s willingness to fund the project in the upcoming vote on May 7th. The debate touched upon the significant impact on housing buildup and the need for public education on these issues, prompting the committee to contemplate in-person meetings for better communication, especially with the Finance Committee.

In addition to securing funding and educating the public, the committee deliberated on the timing and planning of the project. Concerns were raised about the delay in acquiring necessary equipment, like generators and pumps, and the town’s responsibility for maintaining and inspecting a new pump station. Environmental assessments and borings were also discussed as part of the ongoing work, stressing the urgency of moving the project forward.