FinCom Backs 90 Bridge St. Project

CHATHAM – On a 7-1 vote, the finance committee has thrown its support behind the upcoming special town meeting article authorizing the 90 Bridge St. waterfront project. Members said they appreciate the boost the new upweller and dock system will provide to the shellfishing and boating industries in town. But the benefits go beyond that, Chair Stephen Daniel said.

 “It’s an economic project. It’s a social project. It’s a historical project, a cultural project,” he said. The completed facility will include a new shellfish propagation upweller housed in the refurbished, historic Coast Guard boathouse; it will also include dock space for commercial and recreational boaters and amenities for visitors.

 At the request of the shellfish advisory committee, a split select board voted to call a special town meeting for Sept. 16 to consider the project, which was included in a larger bond authorization that failed at the annual town meeting in May. The subsequent Proposition 2½ debt exclusion vote passed at the town election, and town officials plan to rely on that passage to authorize the funding for 90 Bridge St., should special town meeting voters give the OK. The fincom was not unanimous in its position, however.

 “I can say from my personal opinion, and I think the opinion of many people in town, that it’s inappropriate and that this article should stand on its own and should be voted on again by the taxpayers,” finance committee member Eric Whiteley said. While Whiteley said he supports the 90 Bridge St. project, he voted not to support the article because he disagrees with the select board’s decision to pursue a second town meeting vote using the initial ballot passage, just as was attempted with the failed council on aging project last year.

 “People felt, and I feel, that that was inappropriate,” he said. “That should’ve been a message that we shouldn’t try to do that again.”

 Town counsel opined that the practice is legal, but “for regular people like me, this looks like a legal loophole,” finance committee member Barbara Matteson said. It should be put to another debt exclusion vote “so this doesn’t look so underhanded,” she said.

 Town Manager Jill Goldsmith said it is legal to have ballot authorization come before a town meeting vote. “This is not our standard practice. I can understand, two years in a row, some people may think that’s the case,” she said. “But in essence, the select board was responding to a request to call a special town meeting after the vote.” 

 In the end, with Whiteley dissenting, the finance committee voted to recommend approval of the 90 Bridge St. project, based on its perceived merits. A number of speakers supported the project, including Tom King, chair of the south coastal harbor plan committee.

 “The project is well designed. The cost estimates are feasible and realistic, provided we move quickly and avoid further escalation of construction costs. Time is of the essence,” he said. At a time when other commercial fisheries and coastal resources are struggling, 90 Bridge St. is a means of supporting the blue economy.

 “Do you really want to weaken the bright spots in our working Chatham waterfront by not supporting the shellfish industry?” he asked.

 While town officials estimated the full economic impact of shellfishing in town at around $11 million — between $3 and $7 million of which is from the quahog fishery that the upweller supports — select board member Shareen Davis said the project’s full value can’t be expressed in dollars and cents.

 “It’s a vital part of our cultural identity,” she said.

 Finance committee member and restaurateur Tracy Shields said that, from a food service perspective, “being able to offer people food that is from where they’re visiting is huge.” 

 Whitley said the issue of the previous ballot vote threatens the viability of the article’s passage.

 “There is a perception in town that it’s not right. And I think that is potentially going to cause some problems for getting this article passed,” he said. 

 “Yeah, there’s a political risk, no question,” committee member Andy Young said. “There’s also a heck of a lot of people who want to see this go forward.”