Chairman Charles Coldwell opened the meeting at 7:30P.M.
with Selectmen Douglas Sears, Joseph Gill, John Ryan, and Jerry Selissen in
attendance as well as Town Manager David Cressman and Recording Secretary
Charlene Dennehey. Town Counsel Charles Zaroulis arrived at 8:35P.M.
Mr. Coldwell announced that once again, the town has lost a
stalwart of the community, Mr. Lou Tremblay who was a businessman in town,
involved in town government for many years and an advisor to many here in town
government. He requested a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Tremblay.
The meeting continued with the following scheduled agenda
items.
Representative Miceli,
Senator Tucker, Representative Finegold – General Budget Discussion
The Chairman explained that the State House delegation was
here to look into the crystal ball to see if we can get some pointers for the
upcoming year and thanked the delegation for taking the time to be here and
requested anything they can tell us about the upcoming budget, how it looks, and
the forecast.
Representative James Miceli stated that right now it
looks like it is going to be level funded but level funded realistically --
revenues seem to be up, seem to be accelerated but still a billion and a half to
a billion shortfall looking into the crystal ball. Hoping on local aid to level
fund it and take care of the normal expenses as far as the shortfall and local
aid. Level fund ordinarily means they don’t take into consideration everything
that has gone up in costs. This is what we will try to address as far as the
local aid is concerned this year. The budget will be out probably the week of
April 26 and the Mass Taxpayers Foundation keeps harping on the income revenue
that has grown and they expect a fairly good increase, not substantial, and the
Speaker has taken a different tack on that. He intends to play it close to the
vest and very conservative and feels that we can come out with a good budget
that addresses the local aid picture and later on, if things go well, we can
start looking into some of the other areas. That is good news -- you have the
Governor’s budget and the Town Manager reviewed that in his presentation --
think we’ll be as good as that. You talked about the $400K increase -- I’m
hoping we’ll be in the same ballpark and we’ll do it differently as far as
revenue is concerned; merging of the Turnpike and Mass Highway -- and the
Legislature will take a more conservative look at it. Assuming it doesn’t
happen, then we have the revenues to still address the local aid situation and
I’m optimistic. Every year we’ve come here, the state has always delivered in
the end on the local aid picture and I think we’ll do the same again this year.
Senator Susan Tucker concurred with Representative
Miceli. State tax revenues are up probably to the tune of $300M more than we
expected to be taking in. The bad news is that money is not coming through our
most stable form of taxation which is the income tax which reflects the very bad
job situation in the state. Most people know that we can’t print money the way
they do in Washington DC and we have to balance our budget just as you do. We
can’t spend more than we have but there is a great movement in the Senate to
take some of the extra revenue that is coming in and give it back to the cities
and towns. In the Senate it works that each Senator has an opportunity to sit
down with the Ways and Means Chair and list his or her priorities and my
priorities are local aid for education and to take care of the really glaring
issues in the Governor’s budget -- regional school transportation, funding
special education -- has always been one of the things I’ve felt so strongly
about that hurts local budgets. The State is doing a great deal to try to
stimulate economic activity and to get people back to work. The economic
stimulus bill that the House and Senate passed a few months ago really is an
attempt to address the job issue which is so linked to our ability to send money
back to the cities and towns. When people aren’t getting their incomes and
they’re laid off, we don’t get the income tax. We’re trying very hard to invest
in our economy. Massachusetts is very competitive with other states in terms of
its tax rate and that wasn’t always true. We were always called Taxachusetts --
not true any more. Massachusetts is very competitive but the problem is that it
is a high cost state to do business in, particularly in housing. A young
professional couple moving to Massachusetts look at a house they just saw in
Iowa for $200K and find out they have to pay $600K – very difficult for
companies to recruit. Becoming an economic development issue, very serious, and
our high cost of health care in Massachusetts also contributes to our inability
to attract employers to come to the state but we’re working hard on those in a
very bi-partisan way in state government. Confident that the Governor’s number
will be the same or higher when that budget leaves the
Senate in terms of local aid. Not every community did get
an increase this year and not big bucks but at least it’s going up instead of
down. I will fight for those things, anxious to hear from you. Other less
known line items that affect your budget you may be concerned about as you read
the Governor’s budget -- this is my take on where we are on local aid and next
year.
Representative Barry Finegold echoed what both
Representative Miceli and Senator Tucker said, and agrees with Mr. Miceli. A
year ago we were in a lot tougher shape than we are now. Still a “funk” out
there and if you don’t believe it, go to North Tewksbury and check out the
office buildings; surprised if parking lots are half full, still a lot of what
used to be filled aren’t there. Not so much that there is a lot of unemployment
but a lot of people underemployed and aren’t making the money they used to make
and we are seeing that in our revenue. As the corporate numbers are going up,
our income numbers aren’t where they used to be and once you see those office
parks start to fill up, you’ll see the income numbers going up. It will be a
while. Specific numbers that the Governor did: for the first time in a long
time the Governor’s numbers are something we can actually use, the $12M and a
total of about $15M are pretty reasonable numbers and a good thing; when
starting to plan your budget, those are pretty safe numbers to use. One wild
card not talked about is we always assume that you’re going to get $X amount
from state government; we always assume that we’re going to get $X amount from
the federal government – we don’t know and we always take that for granted. We
are finally as a State getting out of our situation but we don’t know what the
federal government will do and every year that is always a wild card, that makes
me a little on edge about that. As far as the issue with the Turnpike, makes
some good political play but if we combine all the bonds, that could cause our
bond rating to go down and also might mean that how much we can borrow or can’t
borrow may go up. Like you do, we have a certain amount we can borrow, a limit,
so as much as it sounds good on paper, it’s not as simple as people make it out
to be of combining the Turnpike and Mass Highway. Some good news is NEWSC; I
believe it’s the final year so we’ll start seeing the savings this upcoming
budget, next year, so that’s finally good, a long time coming. We’ve also made
some progress on Public Construction Reform and with your permission, I would
like to come back here in maybe a month or two and go over that and explain how
we are going to make some changes. That is a very good thing and maybe not for
the existing building projects that you’ve been through, but for future building
projects, you will see some savings in that. With that, I’m happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Representative Miceli added that in general for the
Commonwealth, the Governor made a proposal that we change the way we fund
projects coming out of the SBAB and at first blush, the Legislature turned that
down. Instead of carrying 20 year bonds, carry 40 year bonds. We’re able to
take care of more projects and the down side to that was committing the
obligations of the Commonwealth for a longer period of time but sitting down
with the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Committee, I feel strongly that the
Legislature will adopt that proposal.
Selectman Ryan had a question on the SBAB
proposal that the Governor was coming out with -- an intriguing proposal in
stretching out those bonds to 40 years, but when you look at what can happen
with the reimbursements to some of Tewksbury projects, it is quite interesting.
The question is whether or not they can extend the bond commitment of the
Commonwealth out 40 years or not and others from outside government will weigh
in and give you that advice as to whether you can do it or not. Mr. Miceli
responded that at first blush, both the Senate and House said this doesn’t make
good fiscal sense. After reviewing it and looking at it, now feel that in the
long run, this is the only way to encompass a lot of those projects. I feel
confident to give it a positive thumbs up on approaching it that way.
Mr. Ryan stated it will
be interesting to tie that proposal into what Representative Finegold is going
to come back with and tell us what is happening with public construction and so
forth, as that is also part of SBAB approval because the Governor is
recommending some rather significant changes in the way construction laws and
how it impacts the various communities. Sure there is going to be a lot of
people weighing in on that and probably already experiencing some of that.
Regarding something Senator Tucker mentioned, probably this year we could say
that we might be looking at the Governor’s figures or maybe somewhat higher.
That was of interest because 2 weeks ago when the Town Manager gave his budget
report here to the board, he indicated that the budget was out of whack by some
$800K and one of the offsets to that was going to be whether or not the
Governor’s figure of a $400K increase to the town of Tewksbury would stand or
not. I like the conversation that it will be “that or higher” -- a major impact
on the community. Finally, Mr. Miceli indicated that the budget would come in
around April 26. Looking at that, when do you think we will have a budget?
Mr. Miceli responded that
we’d approach it in April, the Senate will do it in May -- I would venture end
of May.
Senator Tucker added that
the goal really is June 1 this year. The problem is trying to explain this
whole practice to people that in February the Governor does the budget, the
House throws it away and does a budget, the Senate throws them both away and
does a budget, and then we have to wait to see what the Governor might Veto, and
then you have to wait and see what we might override in terms to those vetoes.
So the truth is, that the final final product won’t be June 1. All of us
want to get a local aid resolution done early, in April, and take that off the
table and do everything else in the budget but agree on local aid and do it
early enough to help you plan. That has been a common theme all of us have
fought for and when I say the Governor or higher, you understand that I can only
speak for the Senate and a lot of other players involved.
Mr. Ryan stated that
adopting the local aid resolution early would be a tremendous help to every
municipality in the Commonwealth because it allows the towns to adequately
prepare for the next year, particularly the school department that has to do so
much hiring, so many plans to be put in place prior to September 1; anything
along those lines is very helpful and we appreciate all that you folks are doing
for us.
Representative Miceli
added that the question is when do you think we would be through with the
budget? And it will be out, both branches -- at the end of May, beginning of
June. The local aid question will be settled by then; we will all have an idea
long before then.
Representative Finegold
added, then why in the past was it always so late? We had an unrealistic number
by the Governor, had the House leaders and the Senate leaders way off, but that
is somewhat changed. These are actually realistic numbers by the Governor and
the House and Senate informally agreed upon what the budget can be, how much we
can spend, how much our revenues are going to be. There’s a lot of room but not
as much room to wiggle so that is why we will get it done probably by June 1.
Once again, we can take a full year now to override some of the Governor’s
vetoes so that is the only thing that is somewhat uncertain.
Selectman Selissen stated that the
reality is that level funding is nice but I think we are slowly but surely
running out of options. We’ve done a number of things from a budget stand
point; limited by proposition 2 ½; new growth potential has shrunken due to
the present economy; addressed early retirements as much as we can; salary
budget stable for the last 3 years; free cash is dwindling as we speak;
understand the State situation but by the same token, would like to see the
possibility of some of the extra money made referenced to at least on a small
scale coming to the cities and towns. In addition, add in the fact that we’re
getting a shift from commercial values to residential values because of the fact
that we have a very limited commercial base. Now we have a shift in valuations
of 2 full percentage points this year; we addressed that and said okay, the tax
rate for commercial will now go from 1.44 to 1.56 but still we had a 2% drop in
our commercial real estate income. Concerned about that; big concern is that I
hear referenced over and over about the “character of the town of
Tewksbury”….ask myself what is the character of Tewksbury? To me, the character
of Tewksbury are the folks that have lived here 35-40 plus years, raised their
family of 3-5 children, in small capes and ranch style homes and now are really
being tested because of the fact we have this shift from commercial to
residential and now these people were recently faced with a $500-$600 increase
in their taxes. Also, we’re facing huge increases in health costs, huge
increases in retirement costs, and the books at some point in the future are
just not going to balance. We need some help.
Senator Tucker commented
that the ability to pay property taxes is not necessarily linked to the property
tax, i.e. we have a whole group of people in all the towns who bought a house
for $30-$40K and now you can add a couple of zeroes to that and they’re on a
fixed income. One of the most important laws we passed was the Senior Citizen’s
Circuit Breaker Tax Break which basically says that if you are over 65 and you
are paying more than 10% of your income in property tax and water and sewer
bills, that you can get a refund of almost $1,000 from the State. It doesn’t
come out of the town coffers and I would like to see that expanded because I
know of several people in Tewksbury who almost qualified -- their property taxes
were 9 ½% of their income but they didn’t get to that magic number of 10%.
Would like to see that expanded so that we can give more substantial property
tax relief, particularly to our seniors on fixed incomes. That comes directly
from the State and doesn’t come out of the town coffers. That would go a long
way to address some of the issues of this growing tax burden on people whose
income has not grown and is staying the same.
Representative Miceli
added that he knows how hard it is for families in Tewksbury and Wilmington for
people to make it with this additional burden on the tax rate but by the same
token, it would be fool hardy to say we’re going to wave a magic wand. The
burden is much more than the Circuit Breaker’s $1,000 and it goes across all
ages from the young, middle aged, to the elderly and all find it very
difficult. Right now, there isn’t anything on the horizon where we can say to
you that we can give you a substantial increase in local aid. I will leave you
with this: you can bet your boots if we start seeing a growth in revenue, that
at least the 3 people here are going to fight to increase the local aid to the
towns we represent. That is a given and I know about the burden and how hard it
is; we got into that classification battle at the State House where we changed
the max as far as the commercial burden is concerned and I don’t mind shifting
it to the commercial end of the spectrum but understand in Tewksbury that there
are times when you don’t have much of a commercial base and are limited by law.
Be assured that if things get much better, we will fight for more local aid.
Selectman Sears asked about commercial taxes
and Tewksbury and its future. There is an effort to get a break in access for
development off of Route 93 and the thought is that maybe five years down the
line or so, some money might kick in from that development. Please address that
as a possibility and share your thoughts on that matter.
Representative Finegold
responded that the town has a choice to either raise taxes, cut spending, or
find alternative revenues. As representing North Tewksbury, more areas can be
developed but is a question whether this town wants to do that. Concerned that
some of those office buildings will come back to you and say, we’re not worth
what we used to be worth so we want an abatement. That’s going to happen more
and more until we get things turned around in this economy. When it comes to
commercial, it is tough out there. Go to those parking lots in North Tewksbury
and see what I’m seeing – they’re empty and it’s going to be tough.
Senator Tucker responded
that she certainly thinks that in the long run, the town has a very difficult
decision to make as witnessed by the number of people who are here who have
interests on both sides. It is not an immediate bail out for your fiscal
problems this year or next year, that is for certain. Anybody who has dealt
with the transportation department on either the Federal or State level knows
that it’s a very long road; a matter of the future and trying to create a
balance in town and very much up to the leaders and the residents to decide what
is the balance and what they want to see there.
Representative Miceli
stated that part of the question had to do with the ramp, the timetable. I know
of nothing – and have been involved in every aspect of that -- that guarantees
that the ramp is going to be constructed. There is nothing out there – and I’ll
debate that with anybody – talk about putting that access to take care of the
problem in Andover, one talking about Wilmington, the quick slip ramp to take
care of those problems on Ballardvale Street. As far as that piece of property
is concerned, a lot of talk, lot of debate, lot of discussion, but nobody has
said at any juncture, yes, that is going to be approved, the Feds and the State
are going to approve that, and coming in two years, three years. Right now
unless someone comes in from DC with the answer -- I have been to the hearings
and they’ve said yes, we’ve got this in the plans. This is in the mill but I’ve
been in office for a little bit of time and I’ve seen a lot of these roads that
were supposed to have been built and a lot of these ramps that should have been
built, never come to fruition. Things happen. To answer your question, I know
of nothing today that guarantees an access into the property you’re talking
about in the very near future and that’s as blunt as I can be about that.
Selectman Gill asked about the discussion on
the back door cuts we get every so often. We all know, we read the big local
aid number and understand what that is but then down the road, find out that
pilot’s gone, special needs is getting creamed, and then income numbers that we
have to make up. That’s a problem and sometimes the local aid number doesn’t
make a hill of beans.
Representative Miceli: There was a big discussion about the pilot -- you
finally got most of that, we ended up cutting 10% on the pilot so you got 90% of
that money and it was a big issue. We all felt very strongly about that and at
that time, pilot is the payment in lieu of taxes. Since Tewksbury has a
significant amount of State property and that was a big issue like it is with
some of the towns out in the Western part of the State. Some of those towns are
thoroughly developed and have no open space and haven’t done anything to
preserve it and aren’t interested in this issue, but we were and worked with the
local officials in making sure that it was reinstated. Mr. Cressman
added that you did on the pilot but Mr. Gill is also referring to things like
school transportation that has whittled away -- those types of things.
Mr. Gill agreed that yes,
those and others are the things that throw us out of whack because we set our
figures based on the big number, the local aid number. That happens and we
fight for every dollar we think and know we need. Senator Tucker hit one of the
big problems that’s recently targeted our economy and that is shipping jobs
overseas; a big problem and why we see a lot of our buildings empty or half
empty because companies encouraged by the administrations to ship their jobs
overseas. When you ship the job overseas, you ship the income tax overseas,
too. A recent issue: an effort made to exempt seniors from 2 ½ overrides.
Comments, please.
Senator Tucker: Yes, and
Jay [Kelly] was very helpful in explaining to me the utter chaos that would
cause on a local level and I appreciated that input when it came to figuring out
how in the world that would work which leads me back to the kind of tax relief
we need for seniors -- and that is, an expanded Circuit Breaker where more and
more seniors can get relief from the property tax through the State and that’s
what I am fighting for. Had many people in Tewksbury thank me for the current
Circuit Breaker and others who have said, oh I just make $2,000 too much to
qualify but the tax is killing me. I want to fix that aspect of it; much wiser
choice than doing this exemption which is clearly a political ploy, so to
speak. Not sure how my colleagues feel. A nightmare to administer on the local
level.
Representative Finegold:
Practical problems: not even sure if it’s constitutional; you have a lot of
people who have parents in town, just deed the property to their names and
unfortunately, it’s hard to monitor so if you want a tax break if you live in
town, people would do that and how do you catch them on it or enforce it. We
see the other way where people try to take properties out of their names and now
the reverse where young people say okay, Mom and Dad, take the house.
Representative Miceli:
Rather than have everyone tap dance, that went through the House unanimously in
an informal session. I don’t think it’s been totally scrapped yet. I would
support increasing the Circuit Breaker but don’t think this is a dead issue.
Had unanimous support of the House and don’t think anyone came forward to object
to it; went through an informal session which a lot of Bills do go through, not
this significant. The real issue here was, how do we take care of the people
who are the most vulnerable, i.e. everybody is struggling but senior citizens
are having it particularly hard trying to make ends meet and live in their homes
and as someone said add a few zeroes to the cost of the dwelling, somebody who
is getting $900 a month, receiving $10,000 a year, just has a hard time making
it. That’s why we usually do everything we can to address this need. Right
now, it hasn’t gone through the Senate but it went through the House originally
like greased lightening.
Mr. Gill: I just brought
it up because I was very surprised to read that in knowing how almost unworkable
it would be and to me fixing the Circuit Breaker is probably a better answer as
far as administrating the whole process. We will always have somebody who’s
$2,000 off from the program.
Representative Miceli offered to explain the Circuit
Breaker program as some people watching don’t know what we’re talking about.
There was a Bill that went through the House and the Bill said this: when you
go for that proposition 2 ½ override or question on the ballot for an exemption,
senior citizens 65 years or older with income constraints = $40K -- would not
pay that excess derived from that particular project or question. It went
through the House unanimously but right now is languishing as we say, in the
Senate.
Senator Tucker: Part of
what we’re looking at is the fact that someone else does have to pay and there
are unemployed people who are struggling to the same extent and the property tax
would increase for them to make up for the people who did that. It’s a question
of trying to figure out what is fair; same thing you struggle with on the town
level.
Mr. Gill: The same thing
when people want a Senior Citizen discount on cable TV. They don’t realize
that cable doesn’t give anything for free. It comes right back and is added on
to everybody else’s rate; that’s what happened to this proposal of 2 ½. We
would still have to raise that amount of money but from a smaller base. That is
the issue.
Mr. Miceli: Problem with
the Circuit Breaker is if you’re going to increase the amount and give that a
larger exemption back, where are you going to get the money to do that? Trying
to keep that intact even at $1,000 is a struggle. We should increase that to
$3,000 to $4,000 and maybe fine tune that law a little bit, and make sure it
goes to the most needy. We’re talking about dollars. The other one seems to be
more painless.
Chairman Coldwell: We talked about
unemployment and that to me is the key. Put people back to work and more
importantly, keep the people who are working right now, working. Looking at the
local level, when the Town Manager presented his budget 2 weeks ago, we had an
$800,000 problem. You indicated that make shrink about half which means we can
keep our employees going. We can provide the safety services, all the town-wide
services. We’re working with a minimum staff. We’ve been managing our budget
very carefully; outsourcing and privatization when a previous administration
decided to privatize a lot of State jobs and actually put people out of work.
It appears to me that the privatization hasn’t worked too well because it costs
us a great deal more for privatizing than to keep our own people working in
State facilities. The focus should be to keep Massachusetts jobs in
Massachusetts. The workforce wants to work, there’s just no work to do so.
Representative Finegold pointed out the empty parking lots – a sign of the
times. People are working for less money; two and three jobs, something some of
us have done in the past and I applaud them for that but the Legislature should
be looking along with the administration to keep jobs in Massachusetts and
create new jobs; find a better place to do that. If people work, they will
spend, if they spend, the economy turns and creates the need for more goods. I
ask the delegation to support anything that would keep jobs in Massachusetts and
to bring jobs back to Massachusetts and keep people working.
Representative Miceli:
Senator Tucker eluded to the Economic Stimulus Bill and I agree with her. It is
the first time in the Legislature that I’ve seen anything of consequence that
would create jobs, make it through the route, and something that I’d support.
Also, when the Feds vote for something like NAFTA and they don’t know what the
repercussions are going to be down the line and we’re feeling them now, if I had
my way there wouldn’t be much of that going overseas and it bothers me. Bothers
me to see neighbors who were in the computer industry now out of work;
responsible jobs in managerial positions out of work and not for a month but for
a year. This is wrong and coming from my own working class background.
Senator Tucker commended
the Town Manager as she has been following articles about the budget discussions
and it’s easy to say $800,000, this is a scare tactic. The fact is that in some
towns, they get caught off guard because they don’t do worst case scenarios and
as much as we sit here and give you our very best estimates about what’s going
to happen, who knows what is actually in the end -- any number of economic
factors could kick in that we are not aware of now. He has been conservative in
the numbers and looking at worst case scenarios and we will do our best to make
sure that those don’t come to pass but it is good budgeting.
Representative Finegold:
It’s kind of a catch 22 of a circle that goes round and round. From my limited
experience in dealing with company leaders and why they come to this area, it is
because of schools and the educated workforce, something we can’t forget – it’s
our workforce that are educated and our schools and the children of these
company leaders are going to go to. Still a huge shortage of nursing, civic
types of engineers, electrical engineers – do a better job of training people
for specific jobs.
Mr. Coldwell: A shortage
of pharmacists so if anyone wants to talk with me, I’ll get them an application
to the college. We need them badly. Mr. Selissen, you wanted to speak to the
issue of the yearly evaluation with the delegation.
Mr. Selissen: Have a
couple of questions regarding that. Had a couple of conversations with Mr.
[Jay] Kelly as well and what we’ve experienced recently is that residential
values have gone up significantly as compared to commercial values so now here
you are essentially putting us on the spot and saying that now we have to do an
annual evaluation versus every three years. I have a concern about that from
the standpoint of what seems to be driving the big increase in the residential
values is the fact that the interest rates are so low and people are going out
looking at opportunities to buy a house if you can get a 4.5 or 4.75 interest
rate to afford a house and is driving the residential rate. So now we get this
valuation that we do every three years and now DOR says, oh by the way, now we
want you to take a look and maybe do it every year. I am concerned about that
because you can get a fluctuation in one year where residential values jump and
the second year where commercial values jump so that at the end of that
three-year period, maybe it balances off a little bit versus doing an annual
where you could have commercial values jump significantly one year and
residential jump the next year. I addition, there’s an associated cost with
doing this every year versus doing it every three years and it’s nice to say do
it every year but…..
Senator Tucker added that
she’s looking into that and wondered if that wouldn’t be an unfunded mandate
that you could say no to under 2 ½. Don’t know if you know how much it costs
but it seems that it is a back door mandate that if the State is mandating it,
they have to pay for it.
Mr. Miceli added that
cities’ and towns’ assessors have always been responsible annually adjusting
valuations to reflect full and fair cash value as of January 1. That’s the
position the DOR has taken and they feel that this is on the books and that the
towns, the people are better served instead of getting that sticker shock every
three years -- the $500 or $600 to $700 increase you are talking about --
they’re better off on these valuations. I may not agree with them because of
the paperwork involved but this is the way they feel. These evaluations are
done annually; they’re not looking for anything according to them, i.e. Marilyn
Brown, they just want to know if you’ve had a big influx say from last year –
when real estate values were high, that you had a big increase, this year as
opposed to last year. I would assume you haven’t; valuations haven’t gone
higher, if anything, they stabilized in Tewksbury and Wilmington. This year’s
values for individual homes and last year values. According to her if someone
were to contact their office, and Jay Kelly is probably the best assessor I’ve
ever done business with, they are flexible on this.
Mr. Selissen stated that
Jay is in the audience and indicated that our last evaluation year was 2002 when
we did our evaluations and I believe based upon some of the surveys we’ve done,
valuations for residential went up 10% from what I was told. In spite of a
recession or a downturn given the fact that the interest rates continue to be
low, it continues to drive up residential rates and my concern was this 3 year
jump -- was that an anomaly or was that in fact average. Though interest
rates are low, residential still goes up.
Mr. Miceli said it’s only
been last year and this year, been out with daughter in this town looking for
homes, and the prices have stayed pretty much the same last year and this year.
I think Jay is talking about two or three years ago when there was a big spike
in values.
Mr. Selissen: I believe
he said for the calendar year 2003, valuations in Tewksbury went up on average
10% residential.
Mr. Cressman understood in
talking with Mr. Kelly today was that based on where we set our assessed values,
and if this kicks in when you are at 90% and we’re setting it at 95%, the moment
it gets to 90% you have to kick in with the revaluation so therefore there is a
5% shift, they allow us to set it at 95 rather than 100 so it’s 5% it kicks in.
Based on the data that he has collected so far this year, it would kick it. Has
been a regulation of DOR on the books. What’s new about it is the DOR is
starting to enforce the mandate and what is disturbing to us on 3 fronts with
this is (1) its additional costs to the town with no reimbursement at a time
when we are tightening belts; (2) DOR belts have been tightened and Tewksbury as
well as other communities had trouble getting their assessments and tax rates
approved in a timely manner this year because of their staffing situation, (3)
it gets into a public information education issue. When we go out and do it
every 3 years, yes the third year may be a spike or a shift in the various
properties, but in the intervening two years, we can pretty much say to the
average Tewksbury taxpayer, you’re going to see an increase of somewhere in
$100-$150 on their tax bill which is the normal 2 ½ type increase. If every
year one property, a ranch, is going up one rate, a split going up another, a
condo going up more and commercial and industrial are staying the same, then
everything keeps changing and creates confusion among the public and that’s my
concern about this whole piece.
Mr. Miceli stated we can
bring this back to them, have had some conversations with them, and this has
been on the books for years and just now they are starting to enforce it. She
seemed to make light of it, said it’s not a big problem, more equitable as far
as the property owners are concerned but if it’s a problem, we’ll see what we
can do.
Mr. Jay Kelly, Assessor for the Town, stated that on
the revaluation, doing this every year instead of every three years, talking
only about residential property -- is not a big problem -- a few days’ more work
and we can do it unless something funny happens. The problem is the commercial
and industrial. That can’t be done internally in a good and complete way. We
have to hire an outside consultant to do it or we have to do it by a method that
is sort of averaging and not doing a rigorous, defensible revaluation that is
where the problem occurs. We can do it every year, apply the same techniques to
commercial and industrial that we’d apply to residential if we do it internally
and come up with an average increase which is basically inaccurate in trying to
do commercial and industrial. What would happen then is the people who are
inaccurately assessed too high would appeal it, go to the Appellate tax board,
win, and would have a negative effect on the overlays so we’d have to increase
the overlay in anticipation of that. The people who are inaccurately assessed
too low, would not be coming in saying we owe you more money so we’d be losing
that tax money so we’d lose on both the high and the low. The only way around
that is to spend $10,000-$12,000 a year in the interim years that we haven’t
been spending.
Mr. Miceli suggested that
if this is going to be a hardship or problem, why don’t the three of us host a
meeting with the Department of Revenue and invite you folks in. All agreed and
Mr. Miceli will make a call tomorrow and set it up so it is mutually
convenient.
Mr. Selissen stated that
he feels it is an administrative nightmare and as Mr. Cressman indicated
earlier, it is hard to educate taxpayers as to what is going on when they see
this constant shift all the time. He will be there.
Mr. Sears asked for an
update on the Tewksbury Hospital land preservation from Senator Tucker.
Senator Tucker responded that it is moving; at the
stage right now to get all the input that’s been given to us by the community
and we’ll have a meeting shortly with DPH to go over that input and make sure
the comments that the community and various interested parties get incorporated
into the Bill.
Mr. Miceli added that in
speaking with them today, they said it is being reviewed by the Governor’s
people right now, too.
Mr. Cressman wanted to comment on the concerns about
the Chapter 70 formula change and he hopes that if there are going to be Chapter
70 formula changes, that we are made aware of them ahead of time and there be
some type of input provided for that.
Mr. Miceli added that as
of today they decided, the House side, that there may not be any changes this
year. The committee concluded their study of the Chapter 70 formulas in
December, got the report, and is inconclusive. They keep saying they might fine
tune it a little in certain areas but we’ll watch that.
Chairman Coldwell thanked the Delegation for coming
here tonight and we are now well informed, they answered all the questions, we
know what the issues are, and we will keep our fingers crossed and hope
everything works out for the best.
Town Meeting Review Committee
Members of the Town Meeting
Review Committee appearing were Sandy Barbeau, Wil Lambert, Ray Shaw, Liz Carey,
and John Ryan. Mr. Ryan was the Chair of the Town Meeting Review
Committee and announced that they were able to incorporate into the report the
suggestions from the Selectmen, Town Counsel, and other people who watched the
program when it was initially presented to the Board. The report in the
Selectmen’s books is 99% as new issues that arose after the books were completed
were passed to the members but is not a new document.
Mr. Ryan took this opportunity to thank the
committee members who have spent an inordinate amount of time working on this
report, particularly, Town Clerk Liz Carey, Town Manager David Cressman,
Assistant to the Town Manager Sandy Barbeau, Town Moderator Jim Coakley who is
not present, Finance Committee Chairman Ray Shaw, and committee members Wil
Lambert and Dennis Francis. The charge of the committee was to explore and
recommend to the Board of Selectmen the practicability of live broadcasting and
videotaping of all town meetings and meetings of certain boards, committees,
commissions and approved subcommittees for later broadcasting and guidelines for
retention of video/audio tapes. Included in the report are all appointed and
elected boards of the town. Prior to getting into the report, a few general
comments: (1) the subcommittee worked very hard to make this a practical and
all inclusive report. (2) The subcommittee did not address Public Access but
dealt with Channel 10, a governmental informational channel. It was the
unanimous consensus of the committee that they felt the question of Public
Access should be directed to the Cable TV Subcommittee and not this committee
and was not part of their charge. (3) The subcommittee from the very beginning
felt that the re-broadcasting of board meetings, committee meetings, commission
meetings and approved subcommittee meetings was simply given, no dissenting
opinion on that issue. The real issue was how to do it responsibly involving
many departments, involving many key town administrators, properly retaining and
securing tapes and documents, and how to best serve the public who from time to
time request specific tapes and documents.
As you can see from the report, we currently televise
Selectmen meetings, school committee meetings, Board of Health meetings, and
Planning Board meetings. These are elective boards in the town. In addition,
we presently televise the Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] meetings, Conservation
Commission meetings, and from time to time, the Finance Committee public
hearings on Channel 10 and they have also been televised periodically on Channel
22, the Educational channel. Note at the beginning here for everybody that the
town has approximately 45 additional approved subcommittees appointed in large
part by the Board of Selectmen or Planning Board or through an acceptance of an
Article at an annual or special town meeting. Please note that many of these 45
approved subcommittees do not meet on a regular schedule and some do not meet at
all. We would recommend strongly that this Board, Town Manager, and responsible
parties take whatever action is necessary to probably disband some of these
committees and are recommending it should be done. Many of these are not
meeting at all, haven’t met in quite a few years but they’re on the books --
some 45 various committees and we looked into each and every one of them which
took an inordinate amount of time.
Live broadcasting videotaping and audiotaping: The
report recognizes that we presently televise live from 4 locations: town hall
auditorium, high school library, high school gymnasium, and high school
auditorium. The report also suggests that the town may wish to explore the
costs and feasibility of televising from other municipal locations, possibly the
police department training room or the town library. There is a cost associated
-- possibly this town meeting review committee or some other committee could
continue to explore that cost.
The subcommittees recommendations are as follows:
For the Board of Selectmen, that we rebroadcast the Selectmen’s meetings within
a 2-week period of time on Channel 10. The committee recommends a schedule of
Friday evening at 7PM, a Sunday afternoon at 1PM, and a Sunday morning at 10AM.
All of this is subject to change because we have so many possibilities of
televising meetings and because of the ones that we are currently televising,
they can request to go on and have their meetings televised and this report
allows for it. We did feel that time is of the essence and it is imperative
that we try to get our meetings on as soon as possible following a regularly
scheduled meeting. We also recommend retaining the tape for one year unless it
is voted by the Board of Selectmen to retain for a longer period of time. There
may be some cases the board may vote to extend the life of a tape of a
particular meeting.
Elective boards, appointed boards, committees,
commissions who presently televise: These are the ones presently
televised. Their meetings will be videotaped and rebroadcast upon vote of the
board, the committee, or commission. When requested, every attempt will be made
to rebroadcast within 7 days; retention policy is recommended same as the Board
of Selectmen.
One year unless voted by the
Board of Selectmen to extend the life of a particular tape of a meeting.
Other boards: Library
trustees, housing authority, regional school committee, other appointed boards,
committees, or commissions not presently televised. If they wish to televise a
meeting, they can file a request with the Town Manager or his designee to
broadcast live and to rebroadcast. The retention policy we recommend is the
same as the Board of Selectmen.
Appointed boards, committees, commissions currently
televising: To rebroadcast, file a request with the town manager or his
designee. We will make every effort to televise them live and to rebroadcast
those meetings within a 7-day period.
Subcommittees such as the Mills Committee: By vote
of their committee, they can request to be televised. The request is sent to
the town manager or his designee. We would like to have at least a 7-day notice
because it does sometimes require notice to arrange for personnel to handle the
meeting. Retention of the tapes, same as Board of Selectmen; re-broadcasting
can follow similar policies. We will rebroadcast these according to a regular
schedule.
The Town Meeting will be rebroadcast within two
weeks of the conclusion of the Town Meeting, Friday evening at 7PM, Saturday at
1PM, and Sunday at 10AM. Videotapes will be marked with the date and time of
the Town Meeting and the Warrant will be attached when storing. The retention
will be 5 years unless voted by the Selectmen to retain for a longer period of
time.
Requests for copies of audiotapes or videotapes: If
you want an audiotape or videotape of Selectmen’s meetings, go to the
Selectmen’s office. For Planning Board and Board of Health, go to the Community
Development Director. Finance committee, Selectmen’s office. Town Meeting,
Town Clerk’s office. School committee, office of the Superintendent of
Schools. Other elected boards, appointed boards, committees and approved
subcommittees, through the office serving the committee. The cost for
reproduction of a tape is $21.50 which is $3.00 for the tape and the remainder
to be based on the salary paid to the lowest paid person in the office. This
fee is subject to an annual review. The subcommittee recommends that the cost
schedule be adopted by all the elected and appointed boards so it is consistent
throughout the town. The funds received to be deposited in the General Fund
unless the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee wish to consider other
possibilities.
Hardware Upgrade: We strongly recommend that the
town look into upgrading the playback videotape deck so we can get a clearer
picture on some of the meetings that we are presently taping. It has probably
been noticed that the quality in some cases is not that great. Mr. Ryan stated
to the Chairman that he went through the presentation fast as we are running
somewhat behind and there are people present for another matter but these are
the highlights and they have had the report now for several weeks so he touched
upon the important things. Mr. Ryan referred questions or comments to
the subcommittee members here tonight and or to direct any questions to the
members present. The policy from an initial start is a good one, very
encompassing in trying to get their message out, a practical policy and
something we can implement and can grow from, i.e. changes and adjustments can
still be made.
Mrs. Carey stated that Selectman Ryan covered all
the bases.
Mr. Sears asked if it would be practical to have a
second copy made for tapes of the Selectmen’s, and School Committee available at
the library so all citizens wouldn’t have to pay the $21.50 and so they could
check the tape in and check it out? Mr. Ryan responded that the
committee discussed all of this relative to the library thought not to get
involved in that initially because once it leaves either the Superintendent’s
office or the Town Clerk’s office, etc. it may not be there when people go after
it. May come back to the town, may be upset that it’s not here, out on loan.
Not a strong feeling one way or the other but felt that initially to handle it
this way. Not interested in charging people $21.50 -- not the issue at all.
Mr. Selissen commented if we had the capability to
transfer these to DVD at some point for storage purposes which could probably
put 2 or 3 meetings on a DVD versus storing videotapes which take up more room.
He commended the committee for a great report which was worth waiting for.
Mr. Coldwell stated that in the report, “…Hardware
upgrade: An upgraded playback videotape deck for Channel 10 is estimated at
$4,000-$5,000 for the hardware. Note that the committee is aware that
videotapes may be converted to the CD format and recognize there is a
significant cost associated with this conversion and the town may wish to
explore the cost of the conversion…,” which we can certainly do over time -- not
a bad idea.
Mr. Ryan: The Review Committee will be happy to
look into that if you want to go further and come back to the committee on a
supplemental page relative to the cost.
Mr. Coldwell: Maybe if you come back with the cost
factor.
Mr. Selissen: To my mind, if you’re talking about
storing for 5 years, the town meetings, it would make sense to put them on DVD.
Mr. Coldwell: Mr. Ryan indicated they could come
back with that cost factor for us.
Mr. Sears: Would this be the time to make a Motion
upon what Mr. Ryan was talking about that there be some review and whittling
down of the committees that are listed?
Mr. Coldwell: As I recall, Mr. Gill asked the Town
Manager to get us that list so that we could act upon it. Mr. Cressman
indicated that it’s underway.
Mr. Coldwell: Do we have any motions regarding the
report?
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Sears, that we accept the report on Live Broadcasting,
Videotaping, and Audio taping by the Town Meeting Review Committee as the policy
and to thank the Committee for a job well done. Unanimous vote.
Mills Study Committee – Final Report
Ray Shaw announced that he was pleased to attend and
present the official report of the Mills Study Committee. As the Board is
aware, Chairman Coldwell called for the appointment of the study committee last
June after the Board had received the Mills proposal for development of a retail
mall in south Tewksbury. The study committee organized and began holding public
hearings in August. As we bring the study committee’s work to a conclusion this
evening, he publicly thanked Mr. Sadwick and his staff for their support
throughout these last several months and Mrs. Barbeau for her assistance in
arranging meeting space and having meetings televised and recorded. Also
thanked Attorney Mark Bobrowski and his review team and Mr. Cressman and his
staff for their assistance in reviewing these submittals. He especially thanked
colleagues on the committee for their endurance for the past several months. As
the Board is aware, the committee has received much criticism both public and
private on the issue the committee has been charged to study. Since its
formation, two members have resigned under protest and have been replaced by the
Board. Also, last November there was an attempt by a local citizen to discredit
certain members and fortunately the Middlesex District Attorney’s office has
vindicated those members accused of impropriety. As part of its work, the Study
Committee held several public hearings and solicited testimony and documents
from the project proponent as well as the public at large. Staff as well as the
team of professional peer reviewers headed by Attorney Bobrowski have reviewed
the documents submitted by the proponent. Included in the report are a summary
of the documents submitted and the comments of the staff and peer review team.
Also included is a Draft Zoning Bylaw which is being submitted by the proponent
for Town Meeting approval and a draft Development Agreement. Attorney Bobrowski
has strongly recommended the Board undertake its own review of the document
submitted and I would urge you to do the same. Our committee was the first stop
the project proponent had and it will be a long process to the project’s
conclusion. The next step beyond the Board of Selectmen is the Tewksbury voters
at Town Meeting in May. Thank you and at this point he introduced Attorney Mark
Bobrowski for his comments.
Attorney Mark Bobrowski thanked the members for the
opportunity to work with the subcommittee and stated it was a rare chance to
take a project from its inception and see how it would be played out. He worked
with the study committee to prepare two chief documents:
(1). The Zoning Bylaw: The
Zoning Bylaw from his perspective affords the town all of the control available
under Chapter 48 of the state zoning act, in that you have a rezoning of a
parcel, an amendment of the bylaw with regard to the text that will control the
parcel -- all by super majority vote of the town at Town Meeting. The next is
the Planning Board if it is approved, who would have to approve a concept plan
which they have a right to disapprove if it is inconsistent with the Development
Agreement or with the adopted zoning bylaw. Finally and most importantly, the
developer will have to submit to a full special permit application -- not a site
plan special permit but a full blown special permit -- in which the Planning
Board will have full discretion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
regional retail shopping center. You can’t ask for more than that from a
municipal perspective in terms of control of the process. There are various
substantive provisions in the zoning with regard to landscaping, buffering,
signing, things of that sort all of which you need to look at very carefully to
make sure that they reflect your druthers on the subject.
(2). The second document is a
Development Agreement which is a spillover document which addresses matters that
we cannot address under zoning. Those things are typically issues like wetlands
replication which of course will be an issue before the Conservation Commission,
easements which will be donated, access questions, intersection improvements,
water and sewer improvements, etc., payments of fees, and other contributions
that are proposed by the developer. I urge you to look at that document from
two perspectives: At this in point in time as drafted, it is legally
defensible. Those promises will be honored because they will have to be honored
under the provisions of the agreement; secondly, as to the substance to the
agreement, I urge you to look at those as a beginning point. If you are happy
with that, you should take it and go with it and if you are not happy with it,
you should review the documents with the proponent of the mall and begin the
negotiation anew. With that in mind I stand ready to help you in that regard if
you desire my assistance and thank you for this opportunity to work with the
study committee.
Mr. Shaw introduced members of the committee here
tonight: Mike Sitar, Wil Lambert, Jim Carter, the staff person assigned is Mr.
Sadwick from Planning and Conservation, and George Donovan and Tom Ryan.
Mr. Coldwell opened the meeting to board members.
Mr. Sears reminded Mr. Shaw he was also on the
committee and not introduced as such. He will read the report but doesn’t know
how helpful it will be as Mr. Hajec’s report is included. Prefers that after
everyone has had the chance, will take it under advisement and move on to
looking at the Development Agreement and have a subcommittee of a couple of
people to review and refine it and look at the bylaw – those being the more
significant of the items to review. It is a best effort and since it was so
unilaterally drafted, the Development Agreement, and should have more give and
take with the Board of Selectmen and maybe in a month or so after the Board of
Selectmen can review it, have the public hearing on the draft as that one is
prepared and have all this happen before the Town Meeting.
Motion to accept
the report, take it under advisement and create a subcommittee and then a public
hearing.
Mr. Gill: not surprised DS remarks as there is no
report nor hype that would satisfy him at this point. He said what he wants to
do and I’m telling you what I think we ought to do. Accept the report from the
committee, thank the committee for a job well done, then move to set up a public
hearing, and have a full hearing of the proposal prior to Town Meeting.
Mr. Sears: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Mr. Gill: But you didn’t.
Mr. Selissen: Thanked the committee; obviously a
trying time for the members of the committee as well as divisive for the town
and there are strong feelings on either side of this issue. Knows they have put
up with a lot and give and take on both sides. Agrees with both Messrs. Gill
and Sears, personally recommends that there be some kind of presentation, not
necessarily by the committee, but some kind of presentation that presents in a
semi-typed format on where we are, and where we are going with this, and would
like to see it videotaped and presented if we go forward with it to town meeting
so that all of the townspeople can be well informed as to this issue. In spite
of what we like to believe, a lot of people are not well informed with what’s
been transpiring at this point.
Mr. Ryan: Don’t want to be repetious but concurs
with everything said here. Get on with it, likes Jerry’s idea of a presentation
and a public hearing and should get on with that. An exhaustive report; the
committee and certainly everybody, those opposed and so forth, don’t know how
divisive it’s been but very healthy in a lot of respects as people put their
ideas on the table in this. Certainly, congratulated everyone in the
discussion; a wealth of information; spent a great deal of time going through
all of it, came prepared with questions but if we’re going to a Public Hearing,
that would probably be the place to ask them rather than weigh in on it
tonight. Also centering on the development agreement as there are quite a few
things in there, certainly from the Board of Selectmen’s point of view, we
should ask questions and the time to do that would also be at the public hearing
which seems to be a very important part of this entire document. Thanked Mr.
Bobrowski personally for your input; watched him at several meetings over the
last couple of months and enjoyed your comments in so many issues and like to
single out Steve Sadwick who has spent an inordinate amount of time at his
office working on this; done the lion’s share along with the Town Manager and
Mr. Shaw as Chairman in bringing this all together. Time has come for a lengthy
public hearing and the discussion and possibly if we could start out with an
overview or a presentation on this issue that we could listen to as we’ve been
following the meetings via TV and from standing in back of rooms, etc. but it is
time to get that presentation, ask our questions, let the public weigh in on
this in some detail, those in favor and those opposed, and get it on to town
meeting and see if it’s going to go. Regardless of how it comes out, the
discussion has been constructive and very good and congratulated everyone who
has had any role in it. Supports Mr. Sears, Mr. Gill and no matter how it comes
out, they are both probably saying the same thing.
Mr. Coldwell: This has been a Herculean effort at
least, not sure many of these people will ever speak to me again from this
committee but we did the right thing by putting this committee into motion last
June. As Mr. Ryan indicated, the other members, a lot of information exchanged,
a lot of opinions made, and not easy to do these types of things as there are
two sides on every issue. Mr. Shaw & his committee have done a good job; stood
their ground, taken a lot of heat and knew that was going to happen, just as we
do when we sit up here. This document, I read it once, and a half again and
will read it a couple more times. A complete document in my mind with a lot of
good information. I weighed in on some of the environmental and health issues
and will do that again, too. My suggestion to the Board was to have a public
hearing and I actually thought about April 13 to do that; the board will be
meeting on April 6 to reorganize and again on April 27 which left the 13th
and the 20th; polling the board, who can be here as a full board on
that time and it appears the 13th is best. Jerry recommended some
sort of overview – how can we work that best between now and April 13? Or do it
just before town meeting….we can do the overview on the 13th and then
have a meeting towards the end of the month, after the 27th, do it on
an off night, depends on what the board’s wish is.
Mr. Shaw, point of information, Attorney Bobrowski
cannot be available on the 13th but the 20th and 27th
are open. [other clients]
Mr. Coldwell , we don’t have to stick to a Wednesday
but don’t want to conflict with other board meetings. A public hearing is
necessary and will happen.
Mr. Gill: Suggest that the motion be “at an
amicable date that the Chairman arranges with all the parties concerned”…kind of
leave it as an open meeting date.
Mr. Coldwell: And my understanding is that with
what you, Jerry, and Doug have said, is that there should be two meetings, a
meeting to give an overview which will be videotaped and played back on the
Channel 10 and then a public hearing on the document and probably centering on
the development agreement.
Mr. Coldwell: Will accept Mr. Gill’s Motion and
then let me work with the office and all the other boards and we will…it won’t
take long…everyone will know what those dates are; many informational sources.
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Ryan, to thank the committee for a job well done and we set up a
public hearing at a mutual date, satisfactory to all parties concerned and that
a presentation be made between the Chairman and the Town Manager how they feel
the way to put it on.
Mr. Coldwell: So we’ll have the review presentation
on it and then have a public hearing; two meetings. A second to Mr. Gill’s
motion?
Mr. Ryan: You really want to have 2 meetings; you
can’t have a presentation followed by a public hearing? I’d like to get right
at a public hearing.
Mr. Gill: I think we can; we can have it like at 7PM and then at 8PM.
Mr. Selissen: A half hour overview summary type of
presentation followed by a public hearing.
Mr. Coldwell: That’s fine. I misread what you
were saying.
Mr. Ryan: That being in mind, I’ll second it.
Mr. Sears: I think we’ve had enough of a Mills
Committee meeting.
Mr. Coldwell: Okay, I have the Motion and don’t
need any more.
Motion been made
and seconded; unanimous vote.
Mr. Coldwell: That meeting will be set; will meet
with Mr. Cressman and all the parties that be. We’ll have a public hearing
shortly and go to it.
Mr. Gill: I have an interrogatory regarding Mr.
Bobrowski. As the committee dissolved itself, he is no longer under the employ
of the committee. Can I suggest that we have him as our attorney?
Mr. Coldwell: I didn’t think we dissolved the committee – didn’t hear
that Motion.
Mr. Gill: They dissolve themselves.
Mr. Coldwell: You
already have? I had some other thoughts but okay. We’ll talk about that again.
Motion by Mr. Gill,
seconded by Mr. Ryan, that the Selectmen retain the services of Attorney
Bobrowski for the duration of this process.
Mr. Sears: And the funds to employ him come from
where?
Mr. Gill: The funds will come out of the
Selectmen’s legal fund.
Mr. Cressman: Unless the proponent’s willing to
continue to pony up.
Mr. Sears: Can we make the suggestion that the
proponent would continue as before in helping the development agreement, made
known and developed and refined and reviewed by the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Gill: That’s fine; whatever Mr. Cressman can
come up with but the important issue is that we retain the services of Attorney
Bobrowski.
Motion by Mr.
Sears, seconded by Mr. Selissen, that the proponent continue as before in
helping the Development Agreement, made known and developed and refined and
reviewed by the Board of Selectmen. Unanimous vote.
The attendees from the Mills Study committee were thanked
by the Board members as they left the table.
Mr. Gill requested a 2-minute recess. Mr.
Coldwell declared a recess at 9:10PM.
Chairman Coldwell called the meeting to order at 9:20PM
and continued with the regular agenda.
Residents
Susan Duffy, 67 Catamount Road: Presented more
information to the members regarding the Mills proposal on recommendation from
Mr. Shaw. Looking at the report they submitted, feels it is lacking quite a
bit of information. She put together a cover letter to the Board which goes
along with the Mills Study Committee proposal and is segmented as their report
is and has comments addressing their concerns and the questions they feel are
still unanswered. In addition to each of these comments, some have attachments
as well. She handed copies of her report for each member tonight but they were
not able to submit it to the Mills Study Committee because they convened a quick
meeting last Thursday and no public input was allowed.
Mr. Coldwell thanked Ms.
Duffy and accepted her reports on behalf of the board and added that at the
public hearing, they would of course be able to make comments there.
Ms. Duffy added that they state in the letter that
they do have a lot more detailed information and concerns about the Development
Agreement and about the draft Zoning Article that they will bring up at the
public hearing. She was encouraged to hear that the Board would like to have
the study committee do a summary presentation for all including the community
and hopes it will be done by the committee and not by the proponent, meaning it
will be committee-produced, and suggested that when looking at a location for
the meeting, to think about having it at the auditorium in case there is a
larger crowd than this evening.
David Silva, 1223 Shawsheen
Street: Has a letter to present, pass out, and read it aloud for the
record. The letter is addressed to the Board of Selectmen and also to the
Planning board:
“Dear Board Members: This letter is to inform the Tewksbury Board of
Selectmen and the Tewksbury Planning Board of the true outcome of a decision
rendered by the Land Use Subcommittee in regards to the recommended land use at
the Perkins property of South Tewksbury. A vote was taken at the Land Use Study
Committee on November 24, 2003 that ranked the recommended uses for the most
acceptable to the least acceptable. This rank was made at the suggestion of
Steve Sadwick. A vote followed that listed office research first, convention
center/golf resort as second, and retail/commercial was ranked last. This vote
was unanimous. The intent was clear that the above uses were voted on in order
of most desirable to least desirable; they were not voted on as equal. When the
meeting minutes were published by Mr. Sadwick, it was clear to me that the
committee needed to meet again to discuss the minutes and clarify our vote as
the minutes published by Mr. Sadwick did not reflect the actual vote taken. The
Land Use Study Committee was dissembled on January 26, 2004 by the Master Plan
Committee. Since that time, it has come to my attention that 4 of the 5 Land
Use Study Committee members requested a meeting through the chairwoman,
Stephanie Wilkie and Steve Sadwick, and were denied a meeting date, even though
one was scheduled for December 22, 2003. Per Chairman Wilkie, she stated a vote
was taken and she saw no need to meet again. As a committee, we were denied the
opportunity to review and accept or correct meeting minutes and
recommendations. As Vice Chairman of the Master Plan Land Use Study Committee,
I served as Chairman at three of the six of our meetings. Under the stress of
intimidation, residents and committee members were still able to logically
discuss the impacts, benefits and feasibilities of several land uses in order to
reach consensus. As a member of the Master Plan Land Use Study Committee, I am
compelled to publicly state that the vote taken November 24, 2003 on recommended
uses for the Perkins Property area of South Tewksbury is not stated as voted by
the Land Use Study Committee and the Master Plan of the Town of Tewksbury.
Sincerely, David Silva.”
Mr. Silva continued, that to recap, we had a vote -- we
voted unanimously to rank usage from most desirable to least desirable. A
unanimous vote, the Minutes were published the next week. I’d say at that time,
the Minutes reflected on as equal and I don’t know if it is standard practice in
the Town of Tewksbury but I think the committee should have at least been able
to meet again to vote on our meeting Minutes and approve them or correct them as
required. Again, this is probably not going to change the history of Tewksbury
at all but I want this as a public record that the vote taken by the Master Plan
Land Use Study Committee on North Tewksbury and South Tewksbury, the South
Tewksbury version was not what was voted on. It was voted on unanimously to
rank them from the most to the least. And this was coming out also of our
Master Plan; our consultant who again suggested that we resist at all possible,
large box retail developments and I just want to make that clear in the history
books of Tewksbury that this committee I was on did not vote that the usages
were to be equal. And also, this will probably be my last meeting in the town
of Tewksbury because my house is for sale and I will be moving, hopefully, not
before the annual Town Meeting. Thank you.
Michelle Walsh, 90 Rounsevell Road: I have been
following the Mall proposal for a very long time and have some comments to share
with the Board. The Chairman asked if they would be more appropriate for
the public hearing in a couple of weeks. Mrs. Walsh stated she didn’t
think so because she thought “outside of the box” on this issue so it doesn’t
pertain to the information in your report. [continuing by Mrs. Walsh:] The town
has heard months of presentations by the Mills Corporation on all aspects of
their proposal. Asked professional consultants to review the accuracy of the
information provided to us by Mills and has heard the opinions and concerns of
the residents and I want to thank those residents who asked those hard questions
of the Mills Study Committee at this time. I felt that the study committee was
very passive in receiving the information from Mills and I felt that the
residents asked them many difficult questions and I appreciate all their
efforts. But I think that the town should be thinking like a major corporation,
that the town should examine all options with due diligence, reviewing the
current proposal as we have done over the many months but more importantly,
researching alternative options. The land owners are clearly open to a
commercial development proposal and needs the town’s approval to proceed. We
have been told for months that there are only 2 options, a Mills Mall or a
residential development. Here’s a third option: the town hires professionals
to research the commercial market to find out what type of commercial
development is best for the town of Tewksbury. Creating a smart development, a
mixture of different types of commercial development, will help sustain the
development when the economy changes. Examples could be office space, research
and development, hotel, small retail, medical facility, and ice rink and
others. I urge the Board to consider a third option – our own proposal. The
residents deserve this. Hire a professional to consult the land owner, research
the market, and design a commercial development of our own. Tewksbury does not
have to realize the impacts a large mall would bring to our town. 20,000 car
trips a day…..Mr. Coldwell interrupted that we are now getting into a
public discussion and we’ve gone through all that.
Mrs. Walsh: The benefits that many residents will
see through the Mills proposal can be obtained through our own commercial
proposal. Union jobs could still be created , increased tax revenues for our
town, possibly more as retail is taxed lower than other commercial properties
and higher paying jobs. Retail jobs cannot support our standard of living in
this part of the country. So Mr. Chairman, I would like the board to consider
taking advantage of this unique opportunity and hire consultants to find out
what is the best commercial development for this site. I hope you can comment
tonight on whether you will take this under consideration. I don’t feel that we
only have 2 options; we’ve been told that but I think there’s a third and I
think if we think like a corporation, we don’t have to take the first person
that knocked at our door.
Mr. Coldwell: I have a comment. After 10 months,
why is it coming up now?
Mrs. Walsh: Because I think we had an obligation to listen to the
presentation by the Mills Corporation but as things are winding down and the
Mills corporation has finalized their presentation, we had an obligation to
listen to them, to decipher the facts, decide whether or not the facts were
accurate or not but I think that while we’re deciding on the Mills or a
residential development, I think a third is also an acceptable alternative and I
think this is the appropriate time to do that. I’d really love to hear some
feedback from the board members.
Mr. Coldwell: I’ll give you my opinion. At this
point, I think we’ve set a public hearing to talk about the Mills project and
after 10 months of hearings, that should come to fruition. And then if that
doesn’t work out, then we can talk about it. I think you heard this evening,
however the possibilities of office buildings and what have you and we have
empty space right here in Tewksbury. I don’t want to get into it tonight.
This is the public hearing we’ll be doing in a couple of weeks but I hear what
you’re saying and it’s something we certainly can consider. Tonight I think we
have to move on to the public hearing but let the other gentlemen speak for
themselves if any wish to do so.
Mrs. Walsh: No one else has any comments about
considering an option of hiring professionals and finding out what’s best for
Tewksbury?
Mr. Selissen: The only thing that I would comment
on is that I don’t think we’ve come to closure on this thing yet and do think
that once we get to the public hearing and after that we want to look at other
options, we certainly should do that. But we haven’t come to closure on it at
this point so I would disagree with you on that so in my mind, let’s have the
presentation, let’s have the public hearing and then let’s discuss where we’re
going. And I agree with you that I felt right from the beginning we should have
looked at other options and I think it is still a feasible approach.
Mrs. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, my only concern with not
addressing this option now, is now that the report has been submitted, if this
is seen by the residents during the public hearing as only option 1 and option
2, that’s all they’re going to see, all that’s going to be replayed and that’s
all they’re going to come to the special town meeting with for information.
Mr. Coldwell: I think we should follow the course
we have been following. If this was coming forward, this thought, it should
have been running in parallel with the present proposal not after the fact. But
I will not debate you and your point is well taken and seems the members have
nothing further to say so I’ll ask for the next person.
Residents: [continued]
Susan Duffy: I just want to make a point of
clarification about something that Mrs. Walsh said. You asked, Mr. Chairman,
why this hasn’t come up before but it has come up many times. The mixed use
idea. It came up during the Gator meetings a year and a half ago and I think
Michelle was the one who first started talking about it. It also was discussed
by our Master Plan consultant; and Judy Barrett who did the reports that you
have in your committee reports, said that there are other alternatives and you
can read about it in your full report.
Mr. Coldwell: I have that but I’m saying this
thought process, this proposal should have been running parallel with this other
one and was never brought forth like that. You can disagree but we have decided
we are going to a public hearing on this Mills matter. You can raise all these
issues at that point, that’s why I said we are going to a public hearing. If I
wanted to debate all these other matters, we would let everybody stay and would
have gone through with it. Bring your thoughts in a couple of weeks.
Ms. Duffy: I have to say that when you first formed
this committee, I thought your intent that night back last summer was to look at
all possible uses. In fact, the committee was originally called “the Perkins
Study Committee” and then it got changed to the Mills Study Committee.
Mr. Coldwell: I started with, I know where you’re
heading and what you want to do and I’m suggesting and trying to avoid this
confrontation tonight which is why I want to have a public hearing. You people
want to continue this debate; I’m not going to allow it. You’ve had since last
June to make all your points. We had a discussion tonight, I called for a
public hearing and that’s when you people can speak and when the other side can
speak. That’s the fair way to do things. Waving you hand sir is not going to
change my mind, either. I’ve been patient with you people for a long time.
[from back of the room, “YOU people?”]
Ms. Duffy: Excuse me, that’s what I was going to
say -- I really am offended when people say, “you people” and you’ve said it to
me 4 times and ….
Mr. Coldwell: I meant it in the context of your
group. Ms. Duffy: Well then, say that.”
Mr. Coldwell: Your group has been trying to
engage me for the last 10 months and I’ve tried to be patient. Ms. Duffy:
I’m done and wanted to clarify the point if you knew that….I’m not criticizing,
just making a point of clarification.
Mr. Coldwell: You’ve done what you’ve wanted to do
haven’t you. You’ve gotten me upset to the point that’s not right. I’ve given
your group an opportunity to speak for the past 10 months now tonight you’re
going to criticize because another idea came up and I’m not fostering up to it.
I’m sorry. You can bring this point up at the public hearing. You can point
out that there can be other options if you so which, I have problem with that
but that’s why we said a public hearing tonight -- so all sides can be heard
once again. That’s it.
Thomas Tuttle, 1136 Shawsheen Street: There seems
to be a real thin line between modality and morality and that’s a calamity.
This is like a fish tank with people eating each other. What you’re doing to
Jennies Way is totally wrong. I respect your opinion but I do not agree with
this Mills mall whatsoever
Mr. Coldwell: Sir, at the public hearing and I’ll
set the date as soon as we do it you can express this opinion and it will be
heard. If you oppose it, that’s fine but there are people here this evening
that probably didn’t oppose that have left believing there’ll be a public
hearing with all sides being heard and that’s what I’m trying to do.
Mr. Tuttle: I understand that but the reason for
Mills to start with is for more revenue, I thought. Isn’t the reason for more
revenue for the town? How come we have a deficit of $800,000? You’ve got a
library 4 times the size of Andover, a Police station 3 times the size of
Andover. You’re competing with a town which you’re never going to come close to
start with. Is it mismanagement? What’s going on here? I’ve been here for 40
years and there’s condominiums all over. Okay you don’t use 40b; and you put
Mills in. The State says, well, we’ve got to get to 10% for 40b property and you
don’t do it and the State says, gee whiz, we’re not going to give you some
funds. Where’s that going to leave us? A lot higher taxes? With Mills? I
feel diversification would be essential for this town amongst corporations, not
just one company or one thing, that’s very foolish to pool all your eggs in one
pocket. I suggest you think a little more closely because this thing is not
being run right at all.
Mr. Coldwell asked if anyone else wanted to speak on
something other than the Mills project?
If you’re going to speak on the Mills project that is
appropriate for the public hearing, I’m going to rule out of order.
Mark Wood, 671 Chandler Street: Is there anyone
here in this hall that know of any innovative way to solve our fiscal problems?
I don’t. You listened to these legislators tonight and they’re not talking good
tidings. The Governor again for the third year in a row is talking level
funding. We have one of the worst job loss rates in the country in this state
and if people think the economy is getting better, they don’t follow economics.
Mark Sandy who is a chief economic advisor at economy.com said this past week,
the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer based on the state
tax reduction and capital gains reductions, and that’s a fact of life. We at
the Food Pantry in town are thinking of expanding it -- we’re off the wall.
People can’t afford to live. Where is our tax base coming from? Who has some
innovative ideas to raise money? Can you think of any innovative ways to cut
costs? I can’t but I can think of a few minor ones. Talking about research and
development: I came from research and development and can give you a hundred
places for rent. Nobody wants to build for R & D. We have to come up with some
innovative ways and I don’t propose anything in particular. I did talk to Town
Counsel about something which I’d have to explore but we need funding. People
need raises, they can’t work for the same thing all the time, so people have to
think of ways to raise funding.
Patrick Grecco, 130 Jennies Way: My comments are
more of a public safety issue so I’d appreciate it you’d let me get my comments
in. In a recent meeting there was talk about using South Street as an emergency
access point for any development that was going to take place on that property,
specifically a Mall project. South Street as an emergency access route I
believe is an irresponsible decision on behalf the proponent or anyone building
in that property and I’d appreciate it if you’d let me finish as it is public
safety. Why you’re considering your report, I’d like you to think about the
hundred students that get on that bus every day on South Street from 7AM to 8AM
and from 2PM to 3PM getting off the bus, playing in their driveways, walking
their dogs, riding their bikes. There are no sidewalks on that road but yet 2
to 3 times a day, someone’s considering allowing emergency vehicles to fly down
that road. It is not addressed in the report, no specific mention to the
students and buses. What happens if an emergency vehicle, trying to get down a
road that is 15 feet wide at its narrowest point, has to get by a school bus or
by another car and swerves and hits a child. Who’s going to tell that family
that their child got hit because of a Mall? Another point. That development
agreement is in complete. There were promises made to my neighborhood. Who is
going to answer my questions at that public hearing? I don’t see David Wahr or
Liz Link here and they were the ones who swore to us up and down that we were
going to have fences built around the mall property, sound barriers built –
what’ s going to prevent people who come out of a movie theater…[Mr. Coldwell
interrupted that these are issues for the public hearing.] As a point of order,
this is the Residents’ time and I feel I should be allowed to talk about
anything I feel I need to talk about. The biggest proponent is sitting in the
seats and I’m sure he will get his opportunity to speak and I’m sure you will
recognize him as he is also a resident of this town. Please, when you do review
your documents, just envision in your head what it would be like to see an
emergency vehicle going down South Street at a high rate of speed. Try
navigating that road on a normal day, Sir. I apologize for raising my voice but
this is something we are very passionate about and are concerned.
Mr. Coldwell: You are talking about the safety
which is addressed in the report and for the public hearing. If you plan on
coming to the public hearing, you can bring this subject up. Come to the public
hearing and we’ll try to get your questions answered and I will do all I can to
have people here to answer your questions. I said we were going to talk about
other than public hearing issues. At the expense of fairness, there may have
been proponents here that if they thought they could have taken the microphone
this evening, they could have done that. They probably have left.
Maria Damian Fishlin, 120 Jennies Way: My question
is having to do with Town Meeting. The Development Agreement that was submitted
to you and the Zoning Bylaw that was submitted to you -- When did that have to
be submitted to whoever approves a special town meeting that they want to have
in May? When does that have to go through and get approved -- who approves it
to say it’s going to be at Town Meeting?
Mr. Cressman: Anyone is allowed to submit a petition article. They can
submit it up to this Friday the 26th.
Mrs. Fishlin: Next question is in the same vein and
maybe Mr. Zaroulis through you, is the Development Agreement that is in front of
you today. We were told by Mr. Bobrowski that he was merely the scribe, that he
was not the negotiator. Mr. Shaw said that even though he was at those
meetings, he wasn’t the negotiator and that you guys would actually be the
negotiators. Does that have to be negotiated and agreed on by Friday to go to
Town Meeting or will whatever you have in front of you now, if it’s not changed,
is that what we’ll be burdened with?
Town Counsel Zaroulis: I’m not sure what the
question is. I’ve not seen any agreement but clearly if the question is, ‘…does
the agreement have to be negotiated to a final conclusion with signatures by
this Friday,’ the answer is no.
Mrs. Fishlin: Okay.
We were told that the agreement was going to be voted on by Town meeting; is
that not correct?
Mr. Zaroulis: I haven’t seen the agreement so I can’t comment on it;
nothing’s been presented to me.
Mr. Cressman: The Articles as I understand it will
call for town meeting to authorize the board of selectmen and town manager to
sign the Development Agreement. There will also be an Article to approve the
Development Agreement by town meeting.
Mrs. Fishlin: So the paperwork that’s in front of
them….what I want to make sure of since nobody apparently has negotiated this
from what we’ve been told, that you guys have adequate time to protect the town
to go over that and make sure that whatever is there, that maybe we can get more
from the proponent, maybe you think it’s realistic, but obviously 3 days is not
enough time to go over such a massive document and come up with a decision as to
whether or not, if it had to be by the 26th. So is what I’m hearing
-- that the Development in front of these guys right now, if that goes to town
meeting as is, is that what we live with forever? Is that what the selectmen
signed or can that be changed prior to the selectmen signing it? If there’s a
substantial amendment, it has to go back to town meeting, right?
Mr. Cressman: It can be changed; it can be amended
– that’s right – but your initial approval of the development agreement, what is
proposed within the article as a development agreement on Friday and what may be
in the development agreement that eventually gets to town meeting floor as an
amendment, could be different.
Mrs. Fishlin: And you feel that allows you enough
time to review it as a board and make changes if necessary in working with the
proponent.
Mr. Coldwell: In a few weeks? I would think so.
Mrs. Fishlin: Comment, we were told by Mr. Shaw to
bring our concerns to you here tonight when we tried to speak at the public
Mills meeting the other night, the meeting was supposed to run from 7 to 9PM.
At 8:15, Mr. Lambert decided they should adjourn. They told us to take our
concerns up on Tuesday night with the Selectmen, that’s why we’re here. That’s
the reason we’re so frustrated as everybody seems to be pushing us off; now we
get pushed off to that and hopefully that night we’ll have our chance.
Mr. Coldwell: And I understand that but then
tonight it was decided by the Board to have a public hearing to give you a
bigger forum.
Donna Pelczar, 387 Trull Road: Question concerning
the Minutes of the Selectmen’s Committee. The original charge that was given to
the Mills Committee or the Perkins Land Study – is that documented in the
Minutes and is that available to the public -- the original charge that was
voted on by the Selectmen? Mr. Coldwell: All Minutes are public
documents except Executive Session.
Ms. Pelczar: If you voted on the charge given to
the Mills Committee -- will that be documented in your Minutes? Clerk Jerry
Selissen: I’m pretty sure it is; positive it is. Charlene did an excellent
job. Ms. Pelczar: The reason I’m asking for it is I distinctly remember
that being a very broad charge -- “… to see what the best use of the land would
be…” -- and that’s what I want to see, if that is documented because that is
what I remember. Mr. Coldwell: Okay.
Bob Kelley, 75 Mill Street:
Just two process questions, Mr. Chairman. The public hearing as requested
or suggested by Michelle Walsh or by Sue Duffy was to have it at the high school
auditorium which I think would be a good venue for this. Also I would hope that
we would inform the townspeople of this hearing in some manner other than a
public hearing notice out here for those listening tonight. Maybe we could do a
reverse 911 to let people know this is an important meeting for the town, an
important event for people to show up at. On the process issue, from the get go
of this whole issue I think that the process was flawed. We should have started
with getting the pulse of the residents of this community as to what is right
for that land down there. The Master Plan worked with that whole process, came
up with some recommendations as Mr. Silva said. The opportunity to do a survey
of town residents was there clearly for the last 10 months as sort of a
non-binding referendum as to what do you think about what’s right for that land
down there. I would hope that maybe we could do something at the public hearing
and have some sort of vote taken of the people who attend the public hearing as
to what they think is appropriate on the 4 choices that Mr. Silva talked about.
That would give us a pulse of the community before we go into town or a special
town meeting as to what’s right for that land. That gets the community involved
and gives them a chance to weigh in versus having to watch on TV tonight and
listen to all this discussion. A lot of it -- the people’s eyes are glossing
over because they’ve heard this a thousand times. I think the process that we
need is to let the people weigh in and a public hearing would be a good venue
for that. Thank you.
Richard O’Neill, 140 John Street: Mr. Chairman and
Board members, some time late last spring I appeared before you and was naïve
enough to suggest to you that we had a proponent that wished to build a mall in
Tewksbury and that I thought that it was such a significant proposal that we
ought to have as much discussion as we possibly could in the open, whether it be
through open meeting or through a public hearing; that we should have those
discussions televised and that we should broadcast as much information as we
possibly could to the citizens of this community at large, because I was naïve
enough to believe that this was an action that ought to be decided by all the
people -- all the people gathered in assembly at one given moment in time to
come to that final determination, not about what ought to be or what could be
but what will be. The last time that I checked, the only body in this town that
has the authority to do that, is our Town Meeting. I’ve lived in this town
since 1977, have regularly attended I believe every Town Meeting, every Special
Town Meeting, have served on numerous public boards and I don’t recall having
missed a meeting there either because I thought that was democracy and I thought
that was my role in participating in this community and giving back. It has
been a rocky road. It has not been the road of clear intelligence, cordial,
civil debate. But irrespective of how bumpy the road, the information was put
out to the people of this community. And Mills, whether you agree with me or
not, was put to a higher test than any other development proponent ever to come
into this town. [Chairman Coldwell reminded him this was more appropriate for
the public hearing.] Mr. Chairman, I am concluding. The bottom line is that
the people of this town will get the opportunity to speak and I think many of
them have already made up their minds. There are very few that I have spoken to
in the past 3 months who have not. The first meeting of the Mills Study
Committee meeting [another warning from the Chairman]… the single point that I
wish to make is that we had several people serving on that committee who did
yeoman service, who did absolutely what this town asked of them and should be
uncategorically commended for the effort that they have put forward. Period.
And to come up and character assassinate any one of them is unconscionable.
Thank you.
Mr. Coldwell: Mr. O’Neill, I suggest that this
dialog is appropriate for public hearing as well.
John Cave, 81 Jennies Way: I have a question for
the Board. The open space in Jennies Way that runs along the highway – is the
town going to give that to the Mills Corporation or am I not hearing the rumors
right or wrong? Is the open space town land and the town is going to give them
the open space for them to have the access ramp? Jennies Way came with open
space because it’s a cluster housing so isn’t that all open space behind the
houses? That’s the way it looked on my development sheet.
Mr. Coldwell: The town is going to give them open
space? That is not my understanding. Mr. Cressman: I’m not aware of
it. Mr. Coldwell: In all fairness, that’s a good question to ask at the
public hearing. It’s not my understanding, sir. If I’m wrong, I stand
corrected.
Mr. Cave: Being an owner of Krochmal Farms, we have
35 plus acres that would abut the Perkins development and how would we get our
land voted back to commercial use?
Mr. Coldwell: Bring an Article to town meeting,
sir. Follow the procedure, get the Article written, get your signatures, bring
it to Town Meeting or go before the Planning Board as a Zoning change. They’d
make a recommendation pro or con, it would still go to Town Meeting, and it
would be debated there and voted on by the people. If it’s a Zoning change, it
would require a 2/3 vote.
Mr. Cave: All that land, Rocco’s landfill, Krochmal
Farms and Perkins land -- all will change at the same time and if it’s a tax
revenue issue that the town’s trying to bring up, wouldn’t it make more sense to
vote Krochmal Farms -- Rocco’s has 100+ acres there -- wouldn’t it make more
sense to vote it all back into commercial? I mean, you’re going to put the
burden on South Tewksbury and change the quality of life for the people, let’s
make it as much commercial land as we can out there. Mr. Coldwell: That
Article with the Town Meeting: it would be voted on, and yes, you’d just have
to get the Article together.
Mr. Cave: So we could get it in on the same vote?
Mr. Coldwell: I’m not sure you can get an Article on this quickly, no. Mr.
Cressman: It’s up to what you get put together.
Mr. Coldwell: You’d have to go through the process,
get the Article written, submit it with the signatures, and follow the same
procedures that they are going to do.
Mr. Cave: And then the skating rink -- I’ve never
come down to a public meeting. The Board of Selectmen were going to put this
big mega mall in or whatever for the town -- I don’t think sheets of ice at a
reduced price is good enough. I think the Mills corporation should hand you the
keys if you’re going to put this in the middle of our town and disrupt the whole
thing. I think the town should have the skating rink.
Al Fishlin, 120 Jennies Way: First of all, Mr.
Coldwell, I think you owe these people, my neighbors, an apology for referring
to them as “you people”. Mr. Coldwell: I did apologize and I meant to
say, as a group; that was an error on my part. I understand that and I said I
meant ‘your group’ and I hope you accept my apology now. Thank you.
Mr. Fishlin: What you meant to say and what you
said are two different things and I think we know where you stand now. Thank
you. In your charge for this Mills Committee, nowhere does it state that they
were given permission to negotiate a Development Agreement. At what point did
you authorize members of the committee to negotiate a Development Agreement and
put together a Zoning Article?
Mr. Coldwell: They were charged with getting all
the information and doing whatever is necessary to get it back to us for action
and that is my understanding. And if that’s what they decided to do, that’s
what they did and I have no problem with what they’ve done. Under the
direction, they did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Mr. Fishlin: At what point did you authorize or did
they check with you before they negotiated on behalf of the town? Mr.
Coldwell: The final negotiation, the final signature will come from the
Board of Selectmen. They haven’t done anything that we’re going to take either
affirmative or negative action with.
Mr. Fishlin: In that
case, it is my hope that you become educated about this whole issue. For one
thing you did not educate yourselves, or most of you did not, when it came to
the ramp proposals that the MVPC put forth. Your ignorance was clearly
demonstrated that evening when you thought that all 4 of those had access to
South Tewksbury when one in fact did not. Hopefully, it isn’t that easy with
this development proposal from Mills to pull the wool over your eyes and
basically cover themselves at the expense of the town. Last comment: This
Board offered its thanks to the Mills Committee. I would like to offer my
thanks to the residents of the town that sat through clearly biased meetings
that Mr. Shaw held. They put up with quite a bit just as Mr. Shaw put up with
-- the residents put up with just as much if not more. I’ll be more than happy
to say it to Mr. Shaw, already have in fact.
Mr. Coldwell: Excuse me; you are criticizing people
here and it’s not right. I’m here to face you, criticize me, that’s fine.
Let’s at least have it at the public hearing and see what happens at that point.
David Silva, 1223 Shawsheen Street: I have two
things real quick and one has to be that criticism is part of freedom of speech;
we’ll save the criticism for the next meeting then.
Mr. Coldwell: Criticism of other people not being
present I think is not the right thing to do. The gentleman criticized me and
that was fine -- I’m sitting right here.
David Silva: As a follow up to Mr. O’Neill, and
this has to do with the Land Use Study Committee and not necessarily the Mall.
If he was insinuating that I was the person who was doing character
assassination, he is wrong. What I speak is truth and what happened at that
meeting…Mr. Coldwell: I don’t think he did that.
Mr. Silva: Yes he did; he just said it to me as he
walked by me. I asked him who said it and he said I did so I am telling you now
that I did not state any character assassination because what I spoke is the
truth and if they don’t like it, that’s TS. Thank you.
Mr. Silva was the last resident to speak, therefore, the
regular agenda items were continued.
Town Manager
Branch and Leaf Recycling
Mr. Cressman stated that contractors indicated picking up
branches beginning March 29 and leaves on April 12, however, they will be done
on a 5-day schedule rather than on the Tuesday schedule as they were not able to
get the other communities to go along with this. Supplemental information will
be sent out to the public. In the event of inclement weather, the schedule will
try to be adjusted.
Acceptance of Conservation Land – Bradford Road
Mr. Cressman stated this item is tabled for tonight.
DPW Rules & Regulations – Street Opening Permits & Driveways
This item is on Rules and Regulations
concerning permission for use of town roadways, rights of way, and rules and
regulations for street openings. Mr. Duhani, Superintendent of Public Works,
was present to meet any members who have not yet met him and to answer or
clarify any questions on the proposed regulations from the Board members. If
none, Mr. Cressman requested the Board’s motion to authorize them to go forward
with the regulations.
Motion by Mr. Ryan,
seconded by Mr. Gill, to authorize the Town Manager and the DPW Superintendent
to go forward with the Rule and Regulations as submitted this evening.
Unanimous vote.
Mr. Gill asked if these regulations were put in
because of what Mr. Duhani saw when he came here or what was the reason. Mr.
Duhani responded that it affords them the opportunity to better manage the
road infrastructure as currently there is nothing comprehensive in place and
they need a tool to do so.
Executive Session
Negotiations
Personnel Relations Review Board Negotiations
Approval of Minutes of February 10, 2004 (regular
session)
Motion by Mr.
Selissen, seconded by Mr. Gill, to approve the Minutes of February 10, 2004,
regular session. Unanimous vote.
Reports
a.
Board Members
Mr. Selissen: (a) Have
come to closure on contract award for Contract 22 on the sewer project and we’re
going to award that at the latter part of April – corrected by Mr. Cressman
that it would be the latter part of March. Contract 22 is the beginning of
Phase VII. (b). Tomorrow night is a meeting regarding the Water Subcommittee
at 7PM in the Town Manager’s office.
Mr. Ryan: Nothing
tonight.
Mr. Sears: (a) Had
discussed with Mr. Ryan if there might be some way to improve the Tewksbury Town
News, i.e. last issue dated January 2004 he received on February 13 and is
incomplete; a lot of information could have been there but wasn’t; some
information could be put on the town web site in the appropriate spots and any
information thought necessary for people without web site access -- a one-pager
-- could be put around the strategic spots in town similar to how the school
department puts out its monthly calendar with a notice from the superintendent
on the back. Something similar would save on the expense. In talking with
Sandy Barbeau in the Town Manager’s office, the folks who are asked to
contribute to this didn’t get it in on time so the $5,600 cost to put it out
might be better served in another way. Mr. Ryan added that Mr. Sears’
comments are right on target and mailing it out is good if we had a good
newsletter with timely information but after looking at the last one, it needs a
little dressing up, fell short, not timely, one page completely blank – an
expensive mailing. Suggestion to possibly consider some of the boilerplate
information on the web page but also make it available to the public areas via
copies of a newsletter such as the school department, the library, the post
office, etc. and bring them to some local areas like the senior center to
disseminate the information further and save money. He would be happy to sit
down with Sandy and Doug to come up with a better way and make some
recommendations.
(b) Reverse 911 – Mr.
Sears’ understanding is that the Police Department has the facility to be able
to put a message into the 911 system that goes to the various phones in
Tewksbury as he has had calls from time to time from the police department
saying there’s a water main break or something in the area and watch out. If
indeed this can be done in such a way that this would not mess up use of 911
for an emergency, thought if a neutral message with a voice not identified with
any particular individual to announce something like, “there’s a town meeting on
a ‘…date beginning …at a time….and location…” just to alert you or “there’s a
town election or a state election…’ or something saying ‘…the polls are open
from such and such time to such and such time…”. If it could encourage people
to participate in the electoral process and participate in town meetings.
Important decisions at town meetings are made by 100 or 75 people when there are
18,000 registered voters. Some way to make this neutral, not advocating
anything in any political way but just to get people to come out and vote -- to
have that explored. Mr. Selissen and Mr. Sears talked about this earlier
and after thinking about it – and not volunteering for another committee -- this
makes a valid point to encourage more participation in town government. Maybe
we need to put together a committee -- maybe Mr. Sears will be involved as well
as the town registrars and some other people -- to see if there are different
ways to get a better turnout at Town Meeting, town elections, etc. It’s one
alternative but need to look at other alternatives as well and part of the
reason we have the town registrars. Mr. Sears suggested to make a
Motion to refer the suggestion of the reverse 911 to the registrars and to have
them consider that in conjunction with other possibilities of encouraging
participation in the electoral process and have them come back to this Board a
few months in the future when they’ve had time to deliberate and make a report.
Mr. Selissen thinks it’s a good idea to do that and to see what other
towns have worked to do to get bigger participation, and seconded the Motion.
Mr. Ryan asked if the reverse 911 goes through the Police department.
Mr. Selissen stated that the Police department initiates it through their
communication system and is purely mechanical. Mr. Ryan suggested to add
that if we’re going to set up that committee of the registrars, we should
probably add the Police Chief and so forth as part of it because if it’s going
to involve his department, he should be part of the study. Don’t know very much
about how this whole thing [reverse 911] operates; an interesting discussion and
proposal but before we get involved, the Police Chief should be part of it as it
is his building, his department, his communication system. Mr. Sears
agreed. Mr. Gill is in favor of getting everybody out to vote – we’ve
tried everything under the sun short of holding a gun to their heads. Afraid
that the use of the reverse 911 would be an abuse of the system because people
have accustomed themselves that the 911 is used for emergency messages and once
you over abuse something, it is going to be ignored.
