This is the second most significant project the town has ever incurred and we’re looking at it like it’s nothing. We’ve gone at lightning speed for $35 million and nobody slows down to think about it.”

— Karen Raus, who voted against recommending

We had a good plan I think with a phase one, two, three project. (Now) it’s all blown sky high. It went from a phased, solid project to boom, all over the place. I cannot and will not support this project.”

— Al Lees, who voted against recommending

I don’t believe that this is going to be some crazy $35 million debt borrowing that’s going to be, no pun intended, flushed down the toilet. I think the time is now. — Cindy Brown, who made the unsuccessful motion to recommend”

Six days before voters head to the polls to decide the fate of the $35 million Route 6 sewer and water debt exclusion, members of the Westport Finance Committee said Wednesday night that they will not support the project at next month’s Town Meeting.

Tuesday’s debt exclusion question, if passed, is the first of two steps necessary to authorize the town to borrow up to $35 million for the project, which would install a water and sewer “trunk” line from Fall River and run it along the corridor east to the Dartmouth town line. For it to proceed, residents also need to approve a warrant article at Town Meeting which, if passed, would allow the town to appropriate the funds.

But on Wednesday night, a majority of fincom members said they have too many questions to support the project right now, and the committee ultimately rejected a motion to support the project by a 3-6 vote.

While most members said they support the concept of providing modern sewer and water infrastructure along the Route 6 corridor, fincom members said Wednesday that there are just too many unknowns for them to get behind it now, including why the project quickly and late in the game grew from a three-phase, independently funded series of projects, to an all-or-nothing $35 million behemoth.

“I don’t need convincing of the importance of water and sewer,” chairwoman Karen Raus said. “My challenge is with what’s happened here is that we’re not looking at this fiscally.”

From $7 million to $35 million

When the town’s Infrastructure Oversight Committee began actively discussing the project last year, the original plan was to present a $7 to $8 million question to voters that, if passed, would fund the first stage.

At the time, IOC members’ thoughts were that if the first phase was ultimately approved, Westport would then return to voters in successive years to ask for approval to fund phases two and three.

But earlier this year, IOC members shelved that timeline and decided to ask for a single approval to borrow enough funds to complete all three phases.

They did that for various reasons, citing “voter fatigue” if the town kept coming back for more and more money each year, and also to take advantage of the state and federal funding opportunities they believed would follow if voters presented a united front and decided to go ahead and approve the full project at once.

But the IOC’s vote to shift to a single question at election and town meeting changed several fincom members’ attitudes.

Over several budget meetings with the select board in October and January, Raus said, “we didn’t even discuss this project because it wasn’t even ready to be discussed. Two weeks later it turned into a $35 million debt exclusion to be placed on the town warrant ... out of nowhere.”

“This is the second most significant project the town has ever incurred and we’re looking at it like it’s nothing,” she said. “We’ve gone at lightning speed for $35 million and nobody slows down to think about it.”

Raus said the change in strategy made her head spin, and those she’s heard from along the State Road corridor are similarly perplexed.

Apart from the overall funding question, there are also questions about what neighborhoods would benefit, how much “betterments” to tie into the system would cost individual property owners, how long complete buildout would take and cost, and a myriad of other questions, she said.

With so many unknowns, it’s difficult to say where the spending will end, member Al Lees said.

“It is ill-conceived,” he said. “We had a good plan I think with a phase one, two, three project.” Now, “it’s all blown sky high. It went from a phased, solid project to boom, all over the place. I cannot and will not support this project.”

Lees and others have other questions besides overall funding, including the cost of “betterment” payments that would be required of property owners to tie into the trunk line, and about how much economic good it would do the town. 

“SRPEDD (the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District) has guesstimated that when final buildout happens, the town will potentially generate $400,000 to $500,000 of tax revenue" per year, Lees said. "That’s less than one percent of our entire budget.”

“Nobody ever talks about the costs of this, both the fiscal cost (and) the social cost. What is it going to cost when we need a new fire station on Briggs Road?”

Not all opposed

The three members who voted to recommend the project to voters at town meeting conceded that while it might not be perfect, the project’s time has come and Westport needs to strike while the iron is hot.

Christopher Thrasher was one of three town officials who recently stumped for federal funding for the project in Washington, DC. He noted that the project’s first phase recently received a $1 million federal appropriation, as well as the promise of $7 million in low interest state loans, if it is approved. He believes the town should take advantage of the financial opportunities available now, and said that is one of the reasons the IOC decided to go with an overall $35 million question.

“There are funds that are available right now for the entire buildout that likely would not be available for a phased approach,” he said. “The amount in this article is for $35 million — there is no one that I know of on the IOC that is expecting the town to pay or borrow $35 million.”

“I guarantee you, if we put this off another year, we’re going to be sitting in the exact same seats as we are now, with the exact same questions we have now,” added vice chairwoman Cindy Brown, who motioned for fincom approval, and who along with Thrasher and Hugh Morton cast the only three votes in favor of recommending the project at Town Meeting.

“This is going to be a phased in project. Maybe it will escalate along the way. But if you’re looking to receive grant money from (the federal government) or the state, you have to show them that you want to do this project — they’re not going to come and hand you a check.”

“I don’t believe that this is going to be some crazy $35 million debt borrowing that’s going to be, no pun intended, flushed down the toilet. I think the time is now.”

What’s next?

Usually, projects like this are publicly vetted in the opposite order, with an appropriation voted on at Town Meeting first, though contingent on later voter approval of the debt exclusion. IOC members decided earlier this year to flip the procedure this year for expediency’s sake.

Prior to the fincom meeting, vice chairman Bob Daylor said that if Tuesday’s vote fails, the plan is to revert to the normal order, bringing the question to Town Meeting for appropriation, and then asking voters later to approve the debt exclusion provided it passes at Town Meeting.