Bourne Finance Committee, Select Board Vote Recommendations, Finalize Town Meeting Warrant | Bourne News

First on the warrant is a boilerplate article sponsored by the Select Board. It would simply give the Town of Bourne the ability to hear reports and recommendations from various local committees and/or officers, and take further action from there.

Both the board and committee unanimously voted to recommend the article.

The next three articles are interconnected. Article 2, also sponsored by the Select Board, would raise the 2027 tax levy to $250,960. It would pull $250,000 from public safety and $960 from general government.

Once Article 2 transfers the money to the budget, Articles 3 and 4 would redistribute it. Article 3 would put $250,000 toward the budget for the Bourne Police Department to retroactively pay wages. It is retroactive because the Patrol Union Collective Bargaining Agreement was not settled until this year.

Article 4 would pay the remaining $960 in salary for Town Clerk Barry H. Johnson. The cost-of-living adjustment that goes with the position was not realized at the last Annual Town Meeting and will be corrected.

The Select Board and Finance Committee both unanimously voted to recommend the article.

This article would allow the town to “ appropriate, borrow, transfer from available funds, or otherwise provide a sum of money to the Capital Stabilization Fund, or take any other action in relation thereto.”

The motion would take $286,000 from free cash to be put toward the Capital Stabilization Fund, which acts as a reserve.

Both the Finance Committee and Select Board unanimously voted to recommend it.

A couple of the capital funding requests previously presented were called into question during the Finance Committee’s meeting, prompting further discussion at the Select Board.

The Bourne Police Department (BPD) submitted a request for new pistols. BPD Chief Brandon E. Esip brought this same issue to Town Meeting last year, requesting $180,000 in funding to replace their current 10- to 12-year-old weapons.

Esip has since shaved the request to $150,000, but Finance Committee members were still brought up short by the price.

“I’m not comfortable with $150,000 for the police pistols,” Finance Committee member Ronald J. Everitt admitted when it came time to vote. “I believe that we need pistols; I believe that we need to continue to improve our public safety. I’m concerned about the quantity of guns.”

Everitt expressed the same sentiment at the FinCom meeting the week before on September 21, commenting, “I don’t understand why we need almost 50% more guns than we’re gonna use.”

The funding request, if approved, would replace the 71 current firearms with 70 newer models. BPD does not have a specific brand in mind, instead listing the types of equipment needed and several acceptable makes and models on the request. Esip said that the different types would be tested through a vendor before going to bid.

The current proposal would source 20 compact pistols, 50 duty pistols, 70 weapon lights, 70 optics, 50 duty holsters and 70 UC/training holsters. The department also has the option to repair and service the 71 pistols currently in their possession for “in the area of $35,000,” Esip said. It would only be a short-term solution, though, since Esip says that the manufacturers are having an increasingly difficult time sourcing the old parts.

“I’m concerned about the red dot technology; I’m concerned about the number of holsters we need,” Everitt continued. “…Why? I wouldn’t use the gun that I use on the street, or the holster that I use on the street.”

Several committee members agreed. Members Thomas Joyce, Frank Turso and chairman James Sullivan were the only ones to vote in favor of recommending this request, while Carla Emmons, Everitt, Brown, Michael O’Leary and Eric Rollo voted against it. Amanda Bongiovanni was the sole abstention.

Esip came to the Select Board meeting the following night to clear up the questions posed. He explained that while the technology would be new to them, it is already a department standard at nearby precincts. The agency that trains the officers even has a class on using red dot technology. “They wouldn’t have a class if it wasn’t a common thing,” Esip pointed out in a phone interview with the Enterprise.

“The question that seemed to pop up was primarily the inclusion of a red sight on these pistols,” Esip began. He breaks it down into simple terms: The sight projects a red dot that shows the shooter where the bullet is going, as opposed to traditional sights, which have to be aligned manually to help the person aim.

“Most encounters do occur in that 20-foot range,” he explained to the board. “However, most encounters are also in a highly stressful situation with lots of different factors occurring, and anything that allows us to reduce the time on target is essential. The studies have shown that these are quite successful in reducing the number of missed shots.”

Esip also pointed out that replacing 71 guns with 70 newer models is still a reduction of one, and it will only allow for 10 spares at any given time. BPD currently employs 49 full-time officers and six special officers, although Esip says that he expects to hire four to five more special officers within the next year or two.

“If I don’t have enough weapons to spare, I need to take that officer out of an armed-duty assignment, and that’s not what we want to do with this either,” he told the board.

As for concerns about the holsters, he said that on-duty belts are thicker than off-duty counterparts and hold supplies, like handcuffs. A more standard belt is used for assignments like court and undercover work, which Esip says is “not interchangeable.” A different type of holster is required for each to keep the weapon properly secured and easily accessible.

“One foot away, you’re pointing the gun up and you’re doing the best you can,” he said. “But when you start getting into that five-foot, seven-foot range, anything I can do to help make sure the officers are safer… I would be negligent if I wasn’t proposing this.”

Esip’s explanation was enough to satisfy the Select Board. The board voted unanimously to recommend all of Article 6, which includes the request for pistols.

“I think we owe it to our officers to provide them with what they need to do their job most effectively and most safely, and to protect them and the community,” clerk Mary Jane Mastrangelo said. “So I’m totally in favor of this.”

Finance Committee members were also concerned about the status of Anna’s Pals, a nonprofit still in the midst of getting off the ground at the old Ella F. Hoxie Schoolhouse. They are requesting $90,000 from Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds for materials needed to reshingle the old school, a historic building they bought in 2024.

Anna’s Pals is named after Anna Jerome, a high school sophomore from West Roxbury who died from aggressive leukemia in 2014, and “the pals” who visited her throughout treatment. Now, her mother Kristina Jerome is working to transform the old school into a seaside getaway for immunocompromised children.

They were previously granted the funds to repair the roof, and some Finance Committee members were concerned that this would become a pattern.

“I gave them sort of the benefit of the doubt, if you will, on the roof, saying, ‘Okay, they’re sort of new, they’re coming forward for the first project,’” Bongiovanni said. “But now this is their second request, and I just feel like the initiative isn’t there and they’re not raising the funds on their own…I’m just concerned that they keep coming back to us.”

Bongiovanni also expressed reservations over the state of the school, noting that it has asbestos.

“I think we’re gonna end up having to pay for this either way,” Finance Committee member Carla Emmons said. “Even if we get the building back, CPA is still going to come and ask for the $90,000 to put shingles on, and then we’ll have to pay for the labor.”

Anna’s Pals’ request is only for the materials needed to fix the exterior. Labor will be provided by students as part of an agreement struck with Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School.

The committee was split over the decision when they voted on their recommendation. Joyce, Turso, O’Leary and Sullivan voted “yes,” while Rollo, Bongiovanni, Emmons and Brown voted “no.” Everitt abstained.

Jerome, like Esip, attended the next day’s Select Board meeting to clear up any confusion before they made their recommendation. With her was Anna’s Pals Chief Development Officer John M. Izzo, who spoke on behalf of the organization.

Izzo recapped the project’s progress so far. What started as a grassroots project has grown into a multi-year campaign that has raised $750,000 since 2024. Izzo says another $700,000 is in their reserves and they have committed $131,000 to the building.

“This has become dubbed in our office as Kids Helping Kids, and I’m very pleased, because it’s opened up all new avenues of fundraising for us,” Izzo said while he addressed the Board. “You add all that up and, in-kind, it’s about $2.2M to date. I’m not telling you that that’s cash in hand, but I am saying these are real commitments. Otherwise, if I didn’t have those commitments, I would have to fundraise and pay for it.”

Izzo says that multiple professionals, including their lead general contractor, have also “donated their time and effort to varying degrees.” An asbestos study has already been completed on the building.

“In terms of fundraising, we have about $700,000 in grant applications pending right now,” Izzo said. “Again, one of the big numbers there is the $535,000 that we have from MassDevelopment for the One Stop Grant. That we should hear in the next few weeks… We’re also in discussion with some major Boston-area philanthropists. This is why I was brought. And I can tell you that we anticipate making at least one seven-figure gift request before the end of the year.”

The Select Board was pleased with the update, with Board member Peter J. Meier reminding Izzo and Jerome that they “are there to help you, not hurt.” They voted unanimously to recommend Article 10.

Article 11 was only briefly discussed. It details a down payment program that would provide a five-year, 0% interest deferred loan for 10 housing units. The loan, which could be as much as $15,000, would be used to pay that unit’s closing costs and down payments. The payback amount would decrease by 20% each year until the end of the fifth year, when it will be considered paid in full.

Co-applicants Bourne Housing Partnership and Bourne Affordable Housing Trust are requesting $160,000 in CPA funds.

Emmons voiced concerns over the program’s stipulation that loan recipients do not have to pay back the money if they live there for five years without selling.

“I did not understand why this is not self-funding,” Emmons said. “If we pay $150,000 now, and if the issue was not being able to save enough money for a down payment, but that they could pay their normal monthly fees, why we wouldn’t ask for the $15,000 to be repaid over time to fund this project continuously.”

Finance Committee member Eric Rollo called on his real estate expertise to answer Emmons’ question. The affordability of the units would be written into the deed, making them affordable in perpetuity.

“There’s a cap on the value increase,” Finance Committee member Eric Rollo explained. “So they can’t reap the benefits of the market increase. It’s capped. And that’s what makes it affordable for future residents seeking that moving forward.”

Emmons was the sole abstention when the committee called a vote. The article passed the Select Board by unanimous vote.

Article 12 details the donation of the land located at 1025 Scenic Highway to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) as part of the Sagamore Bridge Replacement Project. The Finance Committee unanimously voted to recommend it with little fanfare, but Bongiovanni commented “I wish we were getting something in return.”

That line resonated with a couple of Bourne residents. Three people spoke at the Select Board meeting the next night to echo similar sentiments.

“Someone mentioned a couple of meetings ago about the loss of revenue that we can anticipate feeling with the eminent domain taking those homes,” Susan Baracchini told the board over Zoom. “You know, this is property that we should be selling to the state rather than donating it, in my opinion.”

John York approached the podium to share his thoughts next. He advised the board to “do their homework” before bringing this article to the Special Town Meeting, calling it a “big ask.”

“My personal view is, there’s no piece of real estate in the town of Bourne, or anywhere on Cape Cod, that is not worth anything,” York said. “And I think it’s irresponsible of the town to give away something of value for zero return.”

Select Board member Peter J. Meier defended the decision, pointing out that this project will also bring new infrastructure, while chairwoman Melissa A. Ferretti noted that MassDOT could simply take the land if the town had not agreed to donate it.

“There are other things we’re going to want to negotiate with and for,” Board member Jeanne Azarovitz said. “We have to work with the state for a long time on this, and for another bridge project. So I think there’s going to be more opportunities to work with them…Pick your battles.”

Another Zoom attendee, Friends of the Bourne Rail Trail President Ken Cheitlin, proposed that they could use the land as a bargaining chip for the construction of the Bourne Rail Trail. The Rail Trail is the missing link between the Shining Sea Bikeway and the Cape Cod Canal Pathway and beyond, the Friends of the Bourne Rail Trail website reads.

“I think that would be a very exciting quid-pro-quo to ask the state for at some point in the negotiation,” Cheitlin said.

Meier, Ferretti and Siroonian voted in favor of recommending the article while Mastrangelo and Azarovitz voted against it.

Planning Board chairman John J. Duggan Jr. attended both meetings in person to explain the purpose of this article, which he described as a “simple change” and “a bit of housekeeping.”

The article would allow for an increase in the maximum building height by five feet for roof elements having a slope of 4 inches or more per foot on non-conforming lots, which have been granted five-foot height exceptions in the past.

Town Planner Jennifer Copeland previously explained that Section 2500 of the zoning bylaw allows a five-foot height allowance for roofs with a slope of four inches or more per foot. However, she said that there is a footnote that “refers the nonconforming lots back to this section and this section doesn’t state that they can get the roof height allowance. So it is to be consistent with the other parts of the bylaw.”

“I just wonder how this will impact houses in this area when I consider views,” Emmons said when it came time to take a vote. “What does this mean for people? That ‘Oh, I can make my roof taller; therefore I can maybe have some more space on my third floor or start putting an attic out.’”

“I had the same struggle,” Brown agreed. “It’s like, why not just change these maximum building heights?”

The Finance Committee took a vote on whether or not to recommend the article at the Special Town Meeting. Emmons and Brown voted against it, while the other seven voted in favor.

Duggan came to the next night’s Select Board meeting to clear up any confusion.

“If there’s any kind of sloping lot, you could essentially wind up with 20 feet of building height, which, having a second floor with 12 inches of structure supporting each floor, wouldn’t really allow for anything but a flat roof,” Duggan explained. “Obviously, in our area, Cape style roofs are very popular and very effective, with some of the decorative elements of cupolas and so forth. But this is to bring non-conforming into the 2500 as conforming.”

The Select Board voted unanimously to recommend the article.

The Board wrapped up its meeting by signing off on the warrant, which will be discussed at the upcoming Special Town Meeting on October 19.