In less than two weeks Bristol voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on Question 8, a local $17 million bond referendum that would provide funding for a multitude of Bristol public works projects. If approved, borrowing would provide the immediate funding for open space, renovations to town-owned buildings, road and sidewalk repairs, drainage improvements and a expansion of a town-owned boat marina. Also, if approved, Bristol’s public debt could increase by more than 50 percent — from $28.8 million to almost $46 million.

We recommend voting NO on Question 8 for numerous reasons.

While we do believe that some of the repairs and improvements covered by Question 8 are warranted and necessary, our primary opposition is in the way the leadership of the town of Bristol is presenting this referendum as an all or nothing proposition. This strategy is used to promote public approval of the bond, assuring authority for the most public spending possible.

Your public officials believe that if they include at least one issue you are in favor of, then you will vote for the whole package. The way the referendum is structured also allows elected officials maximum flexibility and latitude in spending these borrowed public funds. There is no guarantee that actual spending must follow the bond’s current description of projects.

In the spirit of inclusionary government, we would have preferred that voters be given the opportunity to vote separately on the various projects, as the State of Rhode Island does with its numerous bond referendums. To that end, more public education and input would have been necessary to gain passage of the numerous town initiatives.

In the current form, there appears to be too little transparency and opportunity for public scrutiny and input. The town’s treasurer, Julie Goucher, states that there would be “deliberation in a public forum on each issue.” However, we are dubious and worry that public approval of this bond referendum gives tacit approval to public officials to move full steam ahead.

Another real concern is the Town of Bristol’s demonstrated capacity to manage significant capital projects. While we are well aware that this dynamic could change after the November election, the current leadership has not demonstrated strength in this regard. We draw voters’ attention to the recent purchases of private waterfront property (Prudence Ferry dock and Azevedo property north of the Engine 2 fire station) which lacked a clear plan and funding. Further, the planning process for a proposed town marina expansion to date has not gone well either.

While some may argue most of the issues contained in Question 8 are repairs and maintenance items and can be grouped as such, the proposed expansion of the town-owned Church Street marina does not fit that description. As such, we feel strongly that voters should have had the opportunity to vote exclusively on this risky investment of public funds. Estimates for the 122-slip marina expansion have ranged as high as $4 million. At this price, or anything close to it, the economics of this marina do not work. At the current annual dockage prices, it could take more than 30 years to get the investment back.

We believe there are numerous smarter and higher priority investments on our waterfront, including necessary repairs to the Prudence Ferry dock, reuse of the Azevedo property and fixing the Independence Park boat ramp. Let’s fix what we already have first!

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 20.0px Tahoma}

We urge Bristol voters to send a message to elected town officials on Nov. 8 to allow more public consideration of these important and expensive public projects, ask them to come back again with clearer plans and the opportunity to vote yes or no on each project. Vote NO on Question 8.