The Valley Reporter has reported (edition February 1, 2024) that the Waitsfield public bond vote needed to complete the financing for the wastewater treatment facility intended for the Munn site will be accelerated from November, when one would normally expect it, to June, 2024. Apparently an important funding source for this project (the federal government) will view the project more favorably and ahead of other similar projects if it is deemed “shovel ready,” which, in this case, means having secured funding at the local level. Simply put, the approval of the bond vote deems the project shovel ready enabling a higher priority for available federal financing.
Two things come to mind. First, a November election, particularly one that has the presidency on the ballot, will always draw more voters than any off-schedule vote. A big project with a big price tag, like this one, should have the benefit of as large a voting mass as possible to either accept or reject the local bond request needed to support it. Reliable voting history tells us that any off-schedule vote will fail to produce a high turn out, promising vote results not at all reflective of the actual public view. In the end the future of a very significant project with long-term financial repercussions for all of us will be decided by less than robust voter participation.
Second, while an affirmative bond vote may deem the project “shovel ready” and increase the likelihood of receiving outside funding, that sprint to the money shortens significantly the time available to inform the public fully about the details of this project, receive input, and diligently evaluate the project within the framework of public concerns. Apparently, a fact sheet of sorts will be provided to the public at some point to clarify the plan and costs. That may benefit folks who haven’t been fully tuned in as yet. But a fact sheet will not address the many wide ranging questions and concerns about this project and is not a convincing substitute for a comprehensive, fully engaged public process to determine its fate. There is much to evaluate about this project…some of it obvious, some of it less so. A vote that precedes full disclosure of the many serious knowns and unknowns about this project could well doom taxpayers to years of unforeseen expense, with a less than optimal return.
For the stated reasons, I urge the board to return to the originally scheduled vote date. There is no substitute for a large gathering of fully informed voters to decide the future of such a dramatic, debatable, and expensive undertaking.
Sal Spinosa lives in Waitsfield
