Our View: A Bridge Too Far

Apparently Chatham town officials did not learn from their mistake. 

 In May, voters at the annual town election approved a Proposition 2½ override to borrow $11 million for a waterfront infrastructure bond, even though the town meeting article for the expenditure failed. Officials are relying on that authorization to borrow $4 million for the 90 Bridge St. project, should that expenditure be approved at Monday’s special town meeting.

 But wait, didn’t town officials rely on a previously approved bond authorization when they sought a second town meeting vote on funding for a new council on aging facility? And didn’t that vote fail, with a number of voters citing the reliance on the previous approval of borrowing as a factor? Yes and yes.

 We understand that it’s legal, but that doesn’t make it the right approach. Officials should have either raised the money through taxes — Chatham has sufficient levy capacity and free cash to easily absorb the $4 million — or schedule another override vote. By not doing so, they’ve endangered what is otherwise an important and much-needed project that’s already under construction.

 Breaking out Bridge Street — which, as finance committee chair Stephen Daniel noted, has economic, historical, cultural and social elements — from the larger waterfront infrastructure package was necessary after voters objected to the omnibus spending proposal last May. Bridge Street is indeed an important project, but as the costs have risen so has skepticism of its efficacy and value to the community. We agree that the town needs a new upweller, and saving the former Stage Island Coast Guard boathouse is a laudable initiative. And it makes sense to secure funding to complete the work (which also makes the town eligible for state grants that will reduce the overall cost to taxpayers) now rather than waiting until the spring.

 This past Tuesday, the select board, at the prompting of Vice Chair Dean Nicastro, discussed amending the town’s budget and financial management policies to limit the ability to rely on previous debt exclusion votes. We hope they follow Nicastro’s lead on this (see our coverage on page 5 to find out) and don’t endanger future projects by essentially taking the easy way out. That is simply a bridge too far.