The primary agenda item was Article One of the upcoming special town meeting, which pertains to the financing of the waterfront infrastructure project on Bridge Street. The project, initially projected to cost $4.5 million, has been revised down to $4 million due to favorable contractor bids. Natural Resources Director Greg Burman emphasized the need to commence work before January 1 to avoid complications from impending building code changes, which could incur additional costs.

The committee discussed the sources of funding, including a $2.4 million authorization from an existing bond and additional funds from the Waterways User Fund. Concerns were raised about the general understanding among taxpayers regarding the financial commitment, urging clear communication about the funding process and the rationale behind the requested amounts.

The complexities of accessing the proposed funds were also discussed, emphasizing the need for approval from various waterfront committees and the town manager. The local building code variances were highlighted as a focal point of concern, particularly as the state had not yet finalized upcoming code changes, creating uncertainties regarding the budget.

The meeting also included a discussion on the borrowing process. The committee noted that the last bond issued for fiscal year 2024 had an interest rate of approximately 4%, with a more specific figure around 3%. The timing for the bonding was contingent upon expenditures made during the current fiscal year, with the anticipated construction for the project divided into two phases: the construction of piers and floats first, followed by the upweller and outbuildings.

One member expressed concern about the flexibility of the budget, particularly if costs exceeded initial estimates. It was clarified that the specific bond request for the upcoming special town meeting was strictly allocated to the 90 Bridge Street project, with a maximum expenditure of $4 million. Should costs exceed this amount, alternative funding sources would be required, or the project would need to be value-engineered to reduce expenses.

Public comments provided a mix of support and opposition. A retired commercial fisherman, Peter Taylor, opposed the project, criticizing the economic value presentation and questioning the project’s financial rationale. He argued that the claimed economic benefits were inflated and lacked comprehensive studies to support the project’s cost-effectiveness.

Conversely, Tom King, chairman of the South Coastal Harbor Management Plan Committee, spoke in favor of the project, highlighting its multi-use potential for various community sectors, including commercial fishing and recreational boating. He asserted that the project was already well underway, with necessary permits in place and construction preparations nearly complete.

Ron Bergstrom, chair of the Barnstable County Commissioners, also supported the project, emphasizing the project’s potential economic value and the importance of not penalizing it due to procedural disagreements. He argued that investing in the shellfishing industry could yield significant returns, as evidenced by historical data and market interest in aquaculture.

The committee also discussed the economic value of the local fishing industry, particularly shellfish. A representative provided figures indicating that the town received substantial revenue from shellfish permits, with $664,000 directed into a revolving fund and just under $105,000 allocated to the general fund for the previous year. An increase in family permit fees was anticipated to yield additional revenue.

Further discussion centered on the tax implications of the project. It was suggested that borrowing the full amount of $4 million could result in an estimated tax impact of three to four cents per $1,000 of assessed value, translating to approximately $34 to $67 on a million-dollar home. The total authorized but unissued debt for the town was reported to be roughly $37 million, including various projects such as a $19 million water treatment facility and a $4.8 million redesign of the transfer station.

The committee debated the process for a special town meeting and the legality of a prior vote related to a bond issue. Some members expressed concerns that the previous vote, which included broader issues, might not have captured the specific needs now being addressed. A legal opinion from Town Council stated that the prior vote would apply to the current article, sparking debate about the appropriateness of this approach.