The meeting opened with a discussion led by Mr. Rena about an oversight in addressing betterments for the Great Pond Phase 1 sewer project. Mr. Rena admitted to missing a requirement during a previous town meeting presentation, highlighting the necessity of betterments for financing expensive capital projects. Betterments, which are essential to allocate costs between homeowners directly benefiting from the sewer and the general taxpayer base, were discussed in detail. A 70% to 30% cost split was proposed, with 70% of project costs covered by benefiting homeowners and 30% by taxpayers. This split aims to balance the financial burden while addressing the need for a clear financing plan before presenting the proposal to voters.

The assistant Town Manager explained the historical precedent of maintaining a consistent ratio. Concerns about why the betterment issue was not presented in a separate warrant article were addressed, with timing constraints cited as a barrier. The decision was made to include betterment language within the existing article, approved by the bond council, to ensure clarity and avoid voter confusion.

The Board then delved into the financial intricacies of the $60 million funding proposal, part of the town’s Capital Improvement Plan. The project aims to reduce nitrogen loads to Great Pond by sewering specific areas and directing wastewater to the main treatment facility. The funding plan includes $55.68 million eligible for a 0% interest loan from the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust, with a potential 25% subsidy, and $4.62 million at a 4.25% interest rate. Anticipated betterment revenues from homeowners were projected to offset some of the debt service, with assessments estimated between $35,000 and $45,000 per homeowner, payable over 30 years.

Concerns arose about the fairness of these assessments, especially considering the potentially higher costs of the project compared to previous ones due to lower density areas. Questions about the implications of the flow neutral bylaw, which allows properties to increase bedrooms based on sewer connection, were raised, noting that only 11% of homes are currently connected to the sewer system. The potential for debt exclusions to alleviate the capital burden was also discussed, with calls for collaboration with the finance committee to identify suitable projects for such funding mechanisms.

Further discussions focused on the management of capital expenditures over the next decade, emphasizing the need for equity in cost apportionment across sewering projects. The board considered the flexibility in adjusting betterments based on actual project costs after bids are opened. It was highlighted that while all costs could theoretically be assessed under betterments, decisions on specific allocations would be the board’s responsibility, with certain costs, like treatment plants, not applied due to the low number of ratepayers.

The timeline for the project’s next steps was clarified, with a summer bidding process anticipated if the article is passed, followed by a special meeting to discuss apportionment and set betterment assessments. Concerns about the urgency of decision-making were voiced, with references to past urgent decisions. Despite recognizing the 70/30 split as equitable, frustrations regarding insufficient information were expressed.

A suggestion to authorize the board to assess up to 70% betterments was made, offering potential flexibility in future assessments. However, the viability of such language for town meeting discussion was questioned, prompting an agreement to consult with Bond Counsel before proceeding.