Town Meeting: Warrant articles of interest

The more you know about the Town Meeting warrant going in, the faster everyone will be able to get off the hot Grafton High School football field.

Town Meeting is usually held in May, but the COVID-19 pandemic created a crisis: it is now Saturday, June 20, on the Grafton High School football field. Registration begins at 7:30 a.m., with the meeting itself kicking off at 9 a.m. A guide to what to expect, bring and prepare for is here.

Let’s take a run through some of the articles of interest.

Articles 1-4 are fairly routine, concerning Blackstone Valley Regional Technical School costs and the selection of a Nelson Park trustee. Expect everything to come to a screeching halt on Article 5, the $67,615,329 Fiscal Year 2021 Town Budget.

When Town Clerk Kandy Lavallee reads the full budget, attendees can call for a “hold” on a department they wish to discuss. Some years, there are few questions; others, there are calls to modify the budget item. The breakdown for each department can be seen in the slideshow above; the full document can be downloaded.

Article 6 is the contingent budget — what the town will spend for FY21 if the $4 million Proposition 2 1/2 override passes during Tuesday’s town election. The total amount is $909,121; an up-to-date breakdown is not available. The override would raise additional school funding, pay for the hiring of a full-time Grafton Fire Chief and two deputies, and cover some capital and municipal expenses.

Articles 7-18 are pretty routine — authorizing town departments to enter into deals, equipment purchases for the fire and police departments.

Articles 19 and 20 involve 27 Upton St., the current home of the DPW garage. It both allows the sell to enter into a sales agreement for the property and changes its zoning to make it suitable for a “Grafton Gateway” envisioned as a mix of office/retail mixed with residential.

Article 21 allows the town to accept property at 93 North St., 17 acres of former orchard land donated by the Engvall family to be used for passive recreation.

Articles 24-29 are actions related to the Community Preservation Committee’s dispersal of Community Preservation Act funds. Raised through a voter-authorized surcharge on local property tax raise funds, the funds may be spent only for for open space preservation, preservation of historic resources, development of affordable housing, and the acquisition and development of outdoor recreational facilities.

Article 30-32 are where things get controversial. It seeks $241,000 already appropriated in 2015 for the Super Park (now renamed the Grafton Community Park) to be transferred to the Municipal Capital Stabilization account. Both items are very similar in wording (the first required adjustment) and were submitted by citizens petition by Colleen Roy, a Finance Committee member who is running for Select Board in Tuesday’s election. Article 32, also submitted by citizens petition by resident Lydia Bogar, asks that the money requested for the park in Article 33 instead be used to improve current town parks.

Article 33 seeks $250,000 for Phase 1 of the Grafton Community Park, to be built on land attached to the now under renovation Grafton Public Library. It seeks to replace the Super Park — a community-built park torn down in 2010 to make way for Grafton High School — with an accessible playground, park and parking area. Other phases of the park, not included in this funding, would add accessible walking trails, a dog park, a zip line, and other amenities.

Article 34 requests that the town borrow $700,000 over the next 10 years to cover the remainder of the costs for Phase 1 of the park.

Things heat up next with Article 39, a citizens petition from Bruce Spinney seeking that the town increase the number of permitted marijuana retail establishments in town from two to three. Spinney, a former selectman and a current town moderator candidate, is the owner of Noble Manna, Inc., which is one of three companies competing for the two available licenses. Spinney submitted the petition after the Select Board rejected a similar article submitted by the town administrator.

Town Planner Christopher McGoldrick, in a memo released this week on the request of the Planning Board, wrote:

Grafton finds itself with three retail marijuana establishments not just
interested in locating in Grafton, but having committed time, financing, and engineering effort to
developing their businesses. All three have obtained Host Community Agreements from the Select
Board and have held public outreach meetings to inform the public about their plans.
The three businesses are up against the limit of two imposed by the current bylaw, which means
that one of them will be blocked. While it is not yet known which of them would end up being
blocked, that blockage is the reason that the citizen’s petition proposes to increase the current limit
by one.

There is no crystal ball to accurately predict market demand or potential revenues. Despite this,
the proposed businesses have conducted their own independent research to get a picture of what
sales in Grafton may look like. Two prevalent discussion points have been that the businesses
moving forward despite knowledge of the limited license and efforts to increase those available
indicates that the three businesses are confident the market is there.

The other discussion point is that marijuana business is frequently cited as being a source of new
revenue for Grafton. Some of this revenue, from host agreements and retail sales, is based on total
retail sales and is therefore likely to be only minimally affected by the number of retail marijuana
businesses, assuming that the same total amount of sales is distributed among however many
businesses there are. However, property tax revenue, being based on the increased value of the
property occupied by the businesses, may increase more in proportion to the number of businesses,
so there is a potential revenue advantage in allowing more businesses.

The final article, Article 41, was submitted by Select Board member Ed Prisby, seeking that the town give control of 25 Worcester St., a long-vacant town-owned property, to the Affordable Housing Trust to build senior housing.