Please Support Local Advertisers
IPSWICH — We can officially add another chapter to the public safety facility saga.
By a vote of 4-1 on Monday, the Select Board approved another round of voting on additional funding for the facility as they take another shot at securing $9.8 million in borrowing to get the project underway.
The board is now calling a Special Town Meeting on Tuesday, July 28, and a subsequent ballot vote on Tuesday, Aug. 11.
In order for the debt exclusion to be approved, it would have to pass at Special Town Meeting by a two-thirds majority and a simple majority at the polls.
Dougherty opposed
In his first full meeting as chair of the Select Board, Michael Dougherty cast the lone vote against Sarah Player’s motion to bring the funding request back before voters.
Dougherty argued that revisiting a measure that had recently failed risks “undermining” the democratic process and creating a “slippery slope” or “gray zone” when it comes to electoral integrity.
“Sometimes votes don’t go the way we want them to go,” he said. “[By calling another vote], you’re undermining people’s confidence in their opportunity to go to the polls or Town Meeting. You either stick to a standard, or you undermine their confidence.”
‘Landslide’
Both sides pointed to the results of the previous votes to bolster their arguments.
While Dougherty repeatedly noted that the borrowing request failed to achieve a two-thirds majority at either Town Meeting or the ballot box, his fellow board members emphasized that the measure received 65.3% support at Town Meeting and 59.9% support at the polls.
“The main point is that it was greatly supported by a majority of people,” Selectperson Charles Surpitski said. “In any circumstance, 60% would be considered a landslide.”
Surpitski also said he’d heard from one concerned citizen who worried their voting clicker had not been working at Town Meeting.
Selectperson Linda Alexson noted that the borrowing request fell just eight votes short of the required two-thirds majority at Town Meeting.
“The majority was very much in favor of it, and the majority at the ballot was very much in favor of moving forward,” she said. “It was a strong majority, and not just at this Town Meeting and ballot, but over the last several years. The community has said, ‘We want this.'”
‘Finish line’
Funding for the facility was first approved by Town Meeting in 2021, when the project carried a $27.5 million price tag.
Although officials had said they would not return for additional funding, project costs have increased due to legal delays, design modifications, and changes to building code requirements.
If approved, the additional $9.8 million in borrowing would bring the total project cost to approximately $39.8 million.
“We are at the finish line. This has been the lead major capital project for the Town for years,” Selectperson Sarah Player said. “It’s shovel ready. It’s ready to go. If we delay now and don’t go after this next potential vote, we are failing as leaders.”
Selectperson Carl Nylen was a bit more torn on bringing the borrowing request back for another round of voting.
“I have somewhat mixed feelings on this one,” he said. “It does give me pause when you ask people to vote a second time on something … it makes me, not uncomfortable, but it does make me pause a bit.”
While he called it an “imperfect project” and worried about the community’s reaction to another vote, Nylen said, “As much as I have questions about it … I would support holding a Special Town Meeting to have another vote.”
Re-vote
Dougherty held his ground, saying he’s concerned about the “message” that is being sent to voters if the board calls another Town Meeting because the previous vote did not go their way.
Player argued that taking another vote is part of the democratic process.
“The democracy that we have allows for re-votes,” she said. “Sometimes we don’t get it right. And sometimes people just want to make sure we got it right, so we vote again.”
Surpitski said the board has an “obligation” to protect the safety of the public.
“That’s the very essence of why government was formed,” he said. “To sit here and know full well that we’re failing in the protection of the public is a tragedy.”
Town clerk concerns
The board consulted Town Clerk Andrea Pappalimberis on the timing and cost of the Special Town Meeting and ballot vote.
According to Pappalimberis, it will cost the Town up to $38,000 to hold another round of voting.
She raised concerns about the logistics of organizing the two votes in a short period, especially with the state election coming in November, and suggested pushing the re-vote back to the fall so the Town could include the borrowing request on the state election ballot.
“I won’t have any fans saying this, but it would make a lot more sense to wait until our scheduled Special Town Meeting,” Pappalimberis said. “We could then get it on the November 3 state ballot, and then we would not have to have a special-special [Town Meeting] and then a special Town election.”
Additionally, Pappalimberis expressed concern that mail-in voters may get confused with the state primary and voting on the public safety facility happening at around the same time.
“It does become very confusing for voters,” she said, adding that it is possible some mail-in votes might not be counted if they are submitted in the wrong envelope.
Pushing forward
Regardless, Player pushed forward with her motion to call a Special Town Meeting and subsequent ballot vote.
“I think it makes sense to move forward with a Special [Town Meeting] this summer,” she said. “We’re hearing that with additional time, there’s an additional cost. This project has been delayed already … the time is now.”
Before casting his vote in opposition, Dougherty again expressed his concerns.
“We are just putting forward a Special Town Meeting and election because we don’t like the result,” he said. “If we start to make a gray zone and bend the processes and not stick to our processes — we start to undermine our processes.”
Surpitski said he took “exception” to Dougherty’s comments.
“I think it’s much more than that,” Surpitski said. “I think it’s about the protection of the public. And that’s an obligation that we have.”
