March 30, 2004
8:00 A.M.
The
meeting was called to order at 8:02 a.m.
Motion: Mark Leach made a motion to approve the
minutes, Tom Thurston seconded the motion and it was approved 6-0-0. (GE had stepped out for coffee.)
Robert
Vetrick asked the chair if the March 18th minutes had been
approved. He was assured that they had
been.
Ruth
Gilbert told the gathered group that the meeting had to close by 11 a.m. so she
sought to limit each person’s comments to 5 minutes each. She then asked for a motion to continue the
discussion on STM Article 1 by taking it off the table.
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to take Article 1 off the table and resume discussion of it. Matthew Clark seconded and it passed unanimously.
Continued Discussion of STM Article 1:
[The
interested parties in the audience, participating in the discussion were: Keith Bergman, Margaret Carroll-Bergman,
Bill Dougal, Patrick Manning, David Nicolau, Gregg Russo, and Lincoln
Sharpless.]
The
discussion was begun by Bill Dougal who said that he would enjoy having more
than the allotted 5 minutes since he was speaking for the assembled group. He continued that he fully comprehends the
issues before the Finance Committee and that after he left FinCom, he was asked
to delve into Community Economic Development and Affordable Housing
issues. He also mentioned that some of
the group have been working with Dr. Clive Barrow, a university professor, who
truly believes that we are a community in crisis. We have a declining population and our tourism is shifting. There is speculation that two major
restaurants may not be staying open next winter.
Bill
continued that we have to become a major cultural destination citing the
theatre, Campus Provincetown, The Pilgrim Monument, etc. He then touched on the schools and feels
that at a minimum the High School will have to close. Touching on the fishing industry, there is concern over how we
can revive it. Mr. Dougal warned that
if we have no jobs then we have no community adding that the Affordable Housing
Task Force (AHTF) and the Board of Selectmen (BoS) have worked long and hard on
this.
He
went on to assert that the AHTF, at last, has a proposal for a community housing plan that needs the
Community Preservation Act (CPA) to fund it.
He further said that we can’t look for a Chapter 40B waiver. The CPA is aimed at working class people –
future cops, teachers, etc. The Town
has to get involved through the CPA initiative.
The
aim of the AHTF is to have a core community left which can sustain itself
throughout the year. If we put together
a plan for cultural happenings and add affordable housing to the mix then this
can happen.
Greg
Russo spoke next basically saying how much work and meetings had gone into the
CPA proposal. “Funding is a MUST!”
David
Nicolau next spoke saying he was sorry the proposal comes at such a very late
hour.
Mark
Leach spoke next saying he agrees with everything that had been said – but
- BEFORE you have year round housing –
you have to have jobs here. Turning to
Mr. Bergman he asked, “Why was no STM held in February, as had been discussed,
where the CPA initiative could have been discussed and voted on as a means of
getting question #2 (3% surcharge) on the May ballot?” - Answer from Keith: We didn’t have free cash certified.
Mark continued, saying that everyone in town has special
focus groups and agendas. We should
have had all the tax payers in focus.
To Bill Dougal, “If you were sitting on this side of the table – how
would you be voting today?” – Answer: “I would vote no without all the
background facts – but once we met – I would vote for it. Affordable Housing has to be the #1 issue in
this town. Bill continued that there
are 3 major wild cards in budget and they are Cape End Manor (CEM), schools,
and ever escalating health insurance.
These will constantly have to be tweaked and revised as part of the
economic development.
Robert
Vetrick spoke next and said he didn’t think anyone could disagree that
affordable housing is necessary. – The problem is that the means of financing
this need is suspect. – Dr Vetrick
continued saying that it’s only in the last 3 weeks that people have come to
realize that there’s a surcharge involved.
Merely using
the formula – for what is affordable – doesn’t always provide housing that truly is affordable. Robert revisited the State’s offer to us of 11 acres for affordable housing and the people in the neighborhood turning it down. Based on that decision, Robert asked, “How much need and commitment was shown?” He further suggested that a promise to not allow any new buildings built unless they are affordable housing for the following year or two would go far in convincing the Finance Committee of the Town’s sincerity. KAB said he had talked to State people about earmarking certain percentages for specific projects.
Bill Dougal said he would support no building for 1 or 2 yrs unless it’s for affordable housing.
Robert
Vetrick continued by saying, “I think you realize the fear in having the CPA
money spent in other ways and for other purposes.”
The
discussion became a bit cyclical, however, KAB suggested recommending STM
Article 1 along with a by-law that directs money to affordable housing and
suggesting further that the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) would be the
gate keepers for the community.
Lincoln
Sharpless says she is planning on bringing down a woman from the State to inform the public all about CPA. She envisions a large gathering in the
auditorium to educate any one interested.
Greg
Russo said this money can be used for rentals and that’s the big sell! If you don’t have the housing first – you
won’t have the community development.
Tom
Thurston repeated that he is thinking that we’re putting the cart before the
horse. Everyone here is working and
living year round. He’s convinced that
affordable housing should be addressed but he cited his personal “war story”
about his attempt in 1992 about starting up a telemarketing firm in Town. He only needed to find 20 people willing to
work year round. Tom found that people
preferred working ridiculously in the summer and collecting unemployment for
the winter. He took his proposition to
South Yarmouth on Union Street and from 1990 – 1998 the firm employed about 100
people who were getting benefits, etc. and some were making $70-$80K/year.
Sue
Buerkel wondered how the affordable housing goals parallel the funding
mechanism? “How much money would you
need?” Patrick Manning said that you
still have to have proposals come forward for affordable housing. He’s looking for a 5 year plan.
Sue
then asked about the 3% matching fund from the State. Right now the proposal is for 100% matching funds (provided the
State has the money). For the 1st
round there will be a full 3% and then depending on how many other towns opt
for this, the money could go down.
Gail
Enos cited rentals as the basic need and told the group about her son who lives
in Harwich because it’s more affordable.
Bill
Dougal said we’ve had a lot of long term employees who have sold their property
and moved to Truro BUT still work here.
Matthew
Clark had a logistical question because he’s still trying to understand how
this money will be spent. Referring to
things he has heard from proponents:
“Would the CPC be recommending subsidies for building rentals? Developing properties itself? Waiting for inbound proposals or issuing
proactive RFPs?” “Is there a good sense of the actual housing needs of future
cops, teachers, etc. ? Do we have any good prospective market
data? There needs to be some kind of a
vision of a mix.”
Patrick
Manning responded that they have looked at the demographics and have an idea of
what is needed but nothing is in place yet.
Bill D. said there is no economic development plan in place, either.
KAB
said the land bank language can’t change but Town meeting vote could adjust the
CPA by-law and vote it down in the future.
Matthew
said, “This is a very hard vote; I think it’s a good match for the needs of the
Town but I will oppose it now given the timing and wait for an actual solution
for the CEM.
Ruth
Gilbert was privy to this article but could not participate in the task force
this winter because she can’t do both – Finance and Affordable Housing but has
read every statement and every decision made by the affordable housing
group. She also will say that the 3%
surcharge has come out at a very late date and it’s going to take people by
surprise. It would have been healthier
to have the surcharge eased in. She
doesn’t feel that the CEM will be resolved within the next few months. We’re looking at another 4 years of carrying
that deficit. The goal is to continue
plugging away at the schools and their budget.
I really came here thinking I was going to oppose this. What we are being asked to do in Article 1 –
is to name a committee. It’s a ballot
item and you get a more accurate read on the ballots rather than the town hall
floor. However, she has reservations
about other constituencies such as the library seeking to tap into this
money. She respects the task force that
has been working all winter but she still wants to know where the land is going
to come from for affordable housing.
She also has reservations about making any more open space
purchases.
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to approve
Article 1 (and for the long range it would be recommended to the general
public). Gail Enos seconded the motion.
Motion: Sue
Buerkel made a motion to amend STM Article 1 by mandating that 80% of the
surcharge be earmarked for affordable housing using the language town counsel
suggested for the amendment. Gail Enos
seconded the motion and it passed 7-0-0.
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to approve
Article 1 as amended. Gail Enos
seconded the motion and it was approved 5 in favor, 2 opposed (MAC and TT) and
0 abstaining.
Ruth
suggested that Matthew, who remains opposed at this time, be allowed to speak
as one dissenting vote.
Ruth
concluded this long discussion by telling the Committee she was very proud of
their deliberations and, in general, very proud of the Committee.
Initially the Committee had voted to reserve recommendation of this article but now that Motta Field is not an issue, the following motion was made:
Motion: Gail Enos
made a motion to not support STM Article 6.
Mark Leach seconded the motion and it passed 7-0-0.
ATM Articles 2, 3, and 4.
KAB said you would be asked to speak on budgets where
you’re not in agreement with the BoS.
Matthew Clark asked where FinCom could raise its broader concerns about
the CEM operating budget and benefit costs.
KAB indicated that the Moderator could offer FinCom an opportunity for
introductory comments at the start of the ATM.
ATM Article 5
Motion: Tom Thurston made a motion to approve. Sue Buerkel seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0-0.
ATM Article 6
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to approve, Mark Leach seconded it and it was approved 7-0-0.
Motion: Sue Buerkel made a motion to NOT
APPROVE. Matthew Clark seconded the
motion and it was passed 7-0-0.
ATM Article 28
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to NOT
RECOMMEND; Tom Thurston seconded it and it was approved 7-0-0. (Ann Maguire will defend.)
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to
recommend. Tom Thurston seconded it and then Matthew asked if
the motion were prudent???? - Based on
that one question, the motion was withdrawn.
Motion: Matthew
made a motion to not recommend. Mark
Leach seconded the motion and it was passed with 6 in favor – 0 opposed – 1
abstaining (TT). Mark will be speaking on it.
Motion: Robert Vetrick made a motion to recommend,
Sue Buerkel seconded the motion and it passed 7-0-0. The
group then asked, “what does it mean?” and received a satisfactory explanation
from KAB. Gail will speak on it.
Robert Vetrick made a motion
to approve; Matthew Clark seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0-0.
Motion: Mark Leach made a motion to approve; Sue
Buerkel seconded the motion and it was approved 7-0-0.
Dennis
Anderson and Keith Bergman presented the latest scenario:
KAB
led the discussion and told the group that Mary Jo Avellar and the Bishop of
the Fall River diocese had proposed a land exchange which was the latest plan
in making a care campus happen.
Ultimately, the church didn’t need the land swap which was proposed but
they do need help with their bottom line.
The Bishop admitted that 20% of their revenues come from their parking
lot. Dennis and KAB met with Father
Dahl and the Parish Council recently.
The entire group was unanimous in its support of the land exchange and
had no interest in acquiring the High School annex. David Guertin and Wayne Perry said it would take $330K to turn
the annex into a parking lot. Only 23
spaces could be made from the annex lot.
There was a “show and tell” plan about how the swap would work. There was a great deal of possible
reconfiguration of parking spaces.
There
would still be the same number of parking spaces in town; the only difference
is in where the revenues will go. The
configuration has not been agreed upon but the Grace Hall lot and School
Buildings are all part of the same lot.
CEM will cede a small corner of Motta field back to the School Committee
BUT the School will have to release certain parking spaces that are needed in
exchange for smidgeon of Motta field.
Tom
asked if it is being proposed that people would enter the church lot and the
town lot through same access road?
Keith
said that the Town would have to relocate the cemetery shed, etc. and that would come to an incidental
expense. He had briefed the School
Committee (Therese Nelson, and Peter Grasso) and the CEM Board (Marilyn Downey
and Bobby Cabral) and everyone was enthused with the plan.
Tom
wondered how the split would take place for the parking spaces. The Town has 160 spaces and the Church has
55. Mr. Bergman said you would look at
total revenues and split percentage wise with the church; he also said there
would have to be a contract drawn up.
Ruth
Gilbert suggested reeling the discussion back in – figuring out a managememt
plan – and she is not thrilled about losing $50K/year in parking revenues. Why the annex was turned down also doesn’t
make fiscal sense.
Gail
Enos said the building is falling down and needs too much maintenance. Robert Vetrick envisions a 2-deck parking
lot on the annex lot; he feels the major cost would be demolition.
Matthew
Clark said he would love an update on timing of pursuing this option.
After
a lot of dates being bandied about, the December 2007 move in date for the new
Care Campus remains in place with a lag time of three to six months.
Dennis
Anderson said the marketing takes a whole lot of time. There are 470 entities out there who know we
lost our originally proposed site so – to pursue any option, we’re going to
have to have site control. If we put
out a Request For Proposal (RFP) before we have "site control” the entire
exercise is useless.
Mark
Leach felt we are putting the “cart before the horse.” Mark continued that he felt the voters
should first decide on the future of the CEM (close, Care Campus, or go to
for-profit), before going through a site control process. Ruth told the Committee that the Town
Manager is proposing this but it’s not an article. This just gives the BoS a sense of what is being done. Keith Bergman then asked the group if they
wanted to go forward with this deficit for the next three years?
Dennis
told the group that they just took the BoS through these scenarios
recently.
Matthew
Clark noted that the inducement payments in the Site Y proposals were
eventually paid back to the Town by the non-profit, he asked if the Town
imagined that would be the case in the latest plan (since it was not indicated
in the Town’s fiscal policy plan?)
Dennis indicated that we would not know until we opened the
proposals. The proposed plan would
result in 90+ jobs.
This
concluded the informational presentation on the CEM.
Finalizing finance committee 2004 report.
Motta
Field would require a footnote –
This
option has been withdrawn and plan C is now being discussed with the Catholic
Fall River diocese by the Cape End Manor Board of Trustees and the BoS.
Tom Thurston left at 11:00 a.m.
Motta
Field proposals have now become moot.
Mark
Leach, and any others presenting, were informed that - when presenting – the
presenter should have 3 identical sheets – one to the Moderator – one to the
Town Clerk – and one from which to read.
Also
an explanation on CPA stating that this annual surcharge can end at any time
the voters decide to rescind it. Unlike the land bank surcharge – this tax
(CPA) can be voted out at any future time.
It
was decided by the group that they would post mtgs ½ hr before the Town Meeting
in order to address any new developments.
Town meetings begin at 6:00 p.m. so the Finance Committee meetings will
begin at 5:30p.m. Gail Enos may be a
few minutes late for the April 7th Town meeting. She was asked to give paper work to Ruth
before the designated day if she feels she may not make the meeting.
The
meeting – by popular vote – adjourned at 11:16 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Evelyn
Rogers Gaudiano
Approved by ____________________________on
______________, 2004
Ruth Gilbert