Advisory committee directs rewrite of funding letter to administration, seeks dollar estimates and clearer funding framework

The Coastal Resilience Advisory Committee debated Jan. 14 how and when to send a letter to town administration recommending two funding mechanisms for coastal resilience: a special-purpose stabilization fund (requiring Town Meeting approval) and a revolving account (to accept and disburse fees). Committee members asked for clearer framing, dollar estimates from the Coastal Resilience Plan (CRP), and language separating suggested fee sources from the recommendation to create the accounts.

Joanna Roche (committee member) said the committee lacks existing mechanisms to accumulate funds and described the letter as a first step to create structures for future coastal-resilience spending. Committee members suggested edits: emphasize that project costs are project-dependent, list possible fee sources (for example, a beach-sticker fee) as examples rather than the sole option, and add estimated cost ranges for the CRP recommendations.

Leah (staff member) told the committee the CRP includes an estimate table for the 40 recommendations, and cited the high-end estimate of about $930,000,000 in total for the plan. Members also noted the town has been contributing roughly $1 million to $1.5 million annually toward coastal resilience planning in recent years and that any new funding mechanisms must be vetted by the finance director before reaching Town Meeting.

After discussion, the committee voted to ask Joanna to revise the draft letter to include the CRP cost numbers and the suggested clarifying language; staff will provide the numerical estimates to Joanna for incorporation. The revised letter will be reviewed and voted on at a future committee meeting so the committee can determine appropriate timing relative to any special Town Meeting or the regular Town Meeting schedule.

Several members stressed a strategy: sequence funding proposals so that more politically feasible mechanisms proceed first and to present clear explanations of where money would be spent before asking voters to approve new funding sources.