We see this as the beginning of the long history of what needs to be done to improve water quality for residents, for the river and for the whole town. And so, bravo!”

Deb Weaver, Westport River Watershed Alliance

Town officials hope a $35 million override question that will be presented to voters in a little over a month will have better luck than one dismissed by voters last July.

Members of the Select Board unanimously voted last week to place a question on the Tuesday, April 9 ballot that, if passed, would allow Westport to borrow up to $35 million for an extensive sewer and water project in the greater Route 6 area. Specifically, voters will be asked whether they want to exempt the bonds required to fund the project from the provisions of Proposition 2 1/2, a state law that caps increases to the tax levy to 2.5 percent annually.

Notably, the ballot question will not include a dollar amount, town administrator James Hartnett said last week.

“The amount of the (debt) exclusion cannot be placed on the ballot, by law,” he explained.

Westport has historically been leery of Proposition 2 1/2 overrides, and has rejected 18 of the 20 override votes held over the 42 years the state's Proposition 2 1/2 has existed.

Most recently, a $3 million override that would have augmented the town government’s operating budget and helped the town address a structural deficit was defeated at the polls last July.

If the ballot question passes Tuesday, April 9, appropriations out of the $35 million in available override funds would have to be approved by voters at Town Meeting this year and in the coming years, and it would ultimately be up to them to decide how much to spend each year, if any.

What is it for?

The funds would cover three individual projects that taken as a whole would extend sewer and water service from one end of Route 6 to the other. Proponents say bringing improved utilities to the Route 6 corridor will revitalize the economic health of northern Westport, increase business and tax revenue, residential development and density, and have a major environmental impact on the whole of Westport.

Broken into three sub-contracts, the first phase of the project is shovel ready, select board member Manny Soares said.

Soares, a member of the town’s Infrastructure Oversight Committee, has been involved in the project’s development for several years now, and said last week that he is anxious to present it to voters.

At last Monday’s meeting, he suggested changing the proposed wording of the ballot question to include not just “Route 6,” but initially, the north end of Westport. Ultimately, his fellow board members declined to use the “north” term in the question’s wording, saying it might send the wrong message. However, they did allow it to be changed from Route 6” to “greater Route 6.”

Speaking on behalf of the “north” addition, Soares said, “I want to make sure that it’s clear (that) there is a benefit” beyond just the Route 6 corridor.

But fellow board members said they had concerns:

“The criticism that we have gotten in the past on debt exclusions (is) that not naming the amount on the ballot is a problem,” Shana Shufelt said. “But what I worry about is if we say north Westport, people are going to think we’re baiting and switching them. Because we haven’t been talking about north Westport, we’ve been talking about Route 6. I’m telling you, I’m concerned that if we start calling it north Westport now, people are going to think it’s bigger than what we’re saying.”

“The project is a Route 6 project,” select board chairman Richard Brewer said. “The rest is semantics.”

Semantics aside, proponents say the economic and environmental health benefits — particularly to help mitigate nitrogen and pollutants in the Westport River — are clear.

“We see this as the beginning of the long history of what needs to be done to improve water quality for residents, for the river and for the whole town,” Deb Weaver, of the Westport River Watershed Alliance, said.

“And so, bravo!”