A Town of Southborough committee met at 7:02 p.m. to review financing options for extending sewer infrastructure, focusing on district improvement financing, potential users and near-term impacts if a zoning article tied to a proposed Costco goes forward.

Committee members discussed why the town would consider a DIF — a financing tool that uses incremental tax revenue from new development to pay for public infrastructure — and the practical steps and costs involved in preparing a DIF development program and related implementation materials required under state law. Participants referenced “mass general law 40 q” as the statutory basis discussed in the meeting and said preparing a compliant DIF packet typically requires substantial documentation and often a consultant.

The discussion focused on three issues: near-term wastewater demand tied to a rezoning warrant article that could allow a Costco-sized retail development; where treatment and discharge or recharge could be sited; and funding options including MassDevelopment technical-assistance grants, betterments and split arrangements for incremental tax receipts. Committee members said Atlantic management (the developer cited in the meeting) has an existing agreement with neighboring Westborough for 50,000 gallons of sewer allocation; they noted that amount would likely cover several anticipated retail uses but that residential or industrial developments would raise demand further.

Committee members described the DIF scope and process as paperwork-intensive but conceptually neutral for taxpayers: the mechanism does not immediately raise property tax rates, they said, because it captures additional tax revenue generated by future development and redirects a portion of that increment to repay infrastructure costs. The group shared local examples (Yarmouth, Mansfield, Barnstable, Littleton) and said existing DIF plans reviewed ranged from roughly 60–70 pages and commonly used consultants to prepare projections and maps. One participant summarized common practice as negotiating a split of incremental revenue (often near 50/50) between the DIF project and the town’s general fund.

Participants highlighted practical constraints and measurement challenges: predicting private investment that will occur only if zoning and infrastructure are available; assembling parcel-level inventories; and estimating incremental assessed value and tax revenue. The group discussed a likely baseline assessment date to be used for DIF calculations (the committee stated the baseline assessment date would be January 1, 2026) and emphasized that adoption timing (spring or fall town meeting) sets that baseline year. They also noted that certain infrastructure components (water and sewer) can be implemented partly outside the DIF district for technical reasons.

On sites and capacity, the conversation emphasized western parcels along Route 9 as primary candidates for development, the need to coordinate with big landowners (including the developer who has closed on lots described as “Lot 3” in the discussion) and uncertainty about where treatment or recharge would be sited. Participants mentioned several potential plant/discharge locations (a large industrial parcel, an East-side parcel owned by a church, and right-of-way options) and said soils, wetlands and access to MassDOT rights-of-way are material constraints. The schools and other large users were discussed as possible contributors or customers; the town water-usage figures for all schools were presented from the water department for initial planning, but participants said those figures would need verification.

Funding sources discussed included: MassDevelopment technical-assistance/grant programs (committee members said recent one-stop real estate technical-assistance awards were in the $30,000–$40,000 range), ARPA and other state or local sources, betterments assessed to benefiting properties, and borrowing. The committee reviewed DOR (Department of Revenue) summaries about betterments and said that betterment assessments are typically secured by a lien, assessed after construction (with limited exceptions), and can be allocated by frontage, unit count, or estimated usage; public properties (town-owned) are exempt from assessment but nonprofits are not. The committee noted that towns sometimes use estimated betterments to fund up-front costs for connection-in-place projects, but called that a hard sell politically in some communities.

Next steps the committee agreed to pursue included: assembling parcel- and capacity-level baseline data for the Route 9 corridor, drafting an initial DIF development program (a first, “rough” version the committee would prepare in-house to identify gaps), pursuing a MassDevelopment technical-assistance grant in the next application cycle, speaking with large landowners and developers once the committee has a defined grant or plan to present, and briefing the Select Board within a month after the MassDevelopment one-stop announcement. Committee members emphasized that the DIF process is lengthy (participants cited planning horizons measured in years to decades), that legal and assessment-review risks exist (the DOR and Attorney General review processes were mentioned), and that the town should consider a sunset clause or similar limits in any DIF warrant article to constrain open-ended commitments.

Votes at a glance: The meeting recorded two routine voice votes. A motion to approve the minutes for July 23 (regular and executive session) and August 27 was moved and seconded and approved by voice; no roll-call tally was recorded in the transcript. A motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and approved by voice.

The committee did not adopt a DIF or make any binding decisions about plant siting or betterment rates. Members concluded the meeting by assigning follow-up tasks for baseline data, preliminary DIF drafting and grant outreach and scheduled a near-term briefing to the Select Board after the MassDevelopment announcement.