Lakeville creates water-infrastructure stabilization fund, sets aside $100,000 for planning and postpones loan for water tower

Lakeville voters on Dec. 8 approved creation of a special-purpose water infrastructure improvement stabilization fund and approved a set of transfers that include $100,000 to support water infrastructure planning, while voting to postpone a separate loan authorization for a water tower.

The meeting approved a motion to transfer and appropriate various unanticipated FY2009 amounts totaling $102,370, the motion record shows; the mover identified $100,000 of that total as to be placed in a fund to be spent for water infrastructure planning and grant-writing. Later in the meeting the town authorized, pursuant to General Laws Chapter 40, Section 5B, a transfer of $1,721,732.06 from the special revenue reserve-for-appropriation account into a newly created water infrastructure improvement stabilization fund.

Officials described the larger transfer as proceeds tied to a legal settlement over contamination of a town well by MTBE (methyl tert‑butyl ether), saying the funds must be used to address water problems at the town office building and related infrastructure. A speaker at the meeting described the funds as settlement proceeds to be used for water improvements and said the town faces potential enforcement action from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) if it does not remediate the contamination and improve water service.

Town officials told voters that DEP has restricted new hookups in some areas until the town can provide adequate water pressure, and that a water tower and new main would be required to serve the town office, the train station area and planned developments. The transfer approved to create the stabilization fund was subject to a counted two‑thirds vote; tellers reported the count as 106 in favor, 0 opposed. The separate loan article for a water tower was moved to postpone indefinitely so the town can pursue grant funding instead; the postponement passed unanimously.

The finance committee recommended approval of both the transfers and the stabilization fund. Officials said up to $100,000 of the settlement funds would be used for grant writing and planning work so the town could be “ready to hit the ground running” if state or federal infrastructure grants become available. One speaker at the meeting referenced broad stimulus or infrastructure funds being available at the state level; the meeting record did not specify any particular grant awards or guaranteed funding sources.

Why this matters: the actions centralize settlement proceeds into a stabilization fund dedicated to water projects and free up a modest planning pot to seek outside grants. The stabilization fund action carried the higher vote threshold and passed by counted two‑thirds; the town then postponed a borrowing plan in favor of seeking grants.

Votes and outcomes: The transfer motion that included the $100,000 planning set‑aside passed by majority vote. The stabilization fund creation and transfer (Article 7) passed by a counted two‑thirds vote, 106–0. The loan authorization for a water tower (Article 8) was postponed indefinitely on a unanimous vote.

Clarifying details recorded at the meeting included a speaker’s statement that the settlement related to MTBE contamination at the town office well and that DEP had limited new hookups until pressure improvements (a water tower) were made. A separate figure appears in the transcript—one speaker at one point cited $1,821,732.06 as the town’s portion of a settlement—creating an inconsistency in the spoken record; the motion text signed into the warrant and read to voters specified $1,721,732.06 as the transfer amount.