Reverse Eminent Domain?

Anyone who even remotely knows me knows that I am a strong proponent of private property rights. As a Realtor I have fought for and supported homeowners' rights for over 25 years. But at a recent Board of Selectmen (BoS) meeting I was surprised to see the board entertain a public discussion with local real estate developer Jim Farnham concerning plans to develop land that is restricted from development.

Surprised because Jim Farnham, who by the way seems like a nice guy, a good citizen and a capable professional, had already been to the proper authority - the Planning Board - with his proposal and was essentially told to consider NOT spending any more money pursuing the proposed project because it could not be permitted.

Why? Because the land in question was restricted from further development by the Planning Board in 1980. The approval of the subdivision at that time created "pork chop" lots with a common driveway. When the PB signed the approval for the subdivision in 1980 it was with the clear understanding that the lots could NEVER be further subdivided. Ever. And the restricted approval was duly recorded with the deeds and the approved plan even has a notation indicating the restriction. The notation on the plan is common practice with the PB in order to assure that no one buys the property without the clear understanding of its limitations. Mr. Farnham concedes knowledge of this.

But here he was, discussing with the BoS the reasons why his "intent" for development of the property parallels the intent of the Senior Housing Bylaw approved by the voters in Hamilton.

This marks the first time I have ever seen a developer attempt to "go around" the PB by appealing to the BoS. Or perhaps it was the other way around. Either way, although Selectman Carey stated that the BoS was in no way attempting to usurp the authority of the PB, the fact that he invited the developer to come and state his case at an open meeting of his board speaks otherwise. Mr. Carey spoke of "disconnects" between the developer and the PB and and said he wanted "to see if there is anything we (the BoS) can do to help out." And he has suggested that the developer, the BoS and the Planning Board meet jointly to "toss around" ideas concerning the project to see if there is a way to make it work. He said he felt that it would be a shame to deny the first project application of the Senior Housing Bylaw.

But here are some facts to consider:

(1) If the property in question is restricted from development, it has to be denied by the Planning Board...period...and therefore should not be considered as a failed attempt to utilize the Senior Housing Bylaw because it was not applicable in the first place. Developers wanting to use the Senior Housing Bylaw need to first find land that conforms, not land that does not.

(2) The BoS is not the authority that interprets the subdivision control and zoning bylaws. That is the responsibility of the PB and the Selectmen should not be attempting to influence their authority, in any way. To do so is tantamount to an Eminent Domain taking in reverse. Instead of the town taking property for the betterment of the community, they are suggesting a private (non-public) entity be allowed to "take" property for private profitability.

Selectman Bill Bowler said it correctly: "I'm not quite sure what the Selectmen's role here is."

No matter how sensitive the developer is willing to be to the concerns of the town, neighbors and local affordable housing, if the land has been restricted properly from further development, as this property has, then that should be the end of the story.

Cutler School Boiler Solution Announced...

HAMILTON -- A decision has been reached that appears to satisfy all parties involved in the Cutler School boiler replacement issue. The School Committee announced today that a grant has been obtained that will allow for the installation of wood stoves in all the classrooms at the school.

The Fincomms and Boards of Selectmen of both towns praised the idea as a unique and revenue sensitive solution to the situation. According to a spokesman for the School Committee, all students will be required to bring a split log to school each morning to fuel the stoves.

As one grandparent noted, "It worked in the past, why not now?"

And one Selectman was overheard saying, "History is repeating itself and Hamilton and Wenham will be role models for other communities throughout the Commonwealth faced with similar heating issues and utility costs."

A Cutler School teacher heralded the concept and stated: "The wood stoves will give the children a sense of responsibility - they will be able to bring wood in each day and use the ashes to sand icey paths. The tops of the stoves can be used for pots of soup for nourishing and inexpensive lunches."

According to information obtained by this blogger, savings attributable to this groundbreaking new solution will exceed $100k per year, enabling the funding of other school maintenance projects previously placed on a "back burner".

In a rare display of solidarity, the solution is also being (un)commonly supported by several diverse local citizen groups, including Enough Is Enough, Support Our Schools, and the Ipswich Greenhead Breeders Association.

(TIC)

SURVEY SAYS...Perform Operational Audit of the Hamilton/Wenham Schools

For the past ten days I have run a poll on this blog site with the following question:

Would you like to see an expert independent operational audit of our schools to improve efficiencies?

The results are now in and although I am not particularly surprised, I think perhaps the School Administration, the School Committee and the members of the Blue Ribbon Committee might want to reconsider their positions opposing an operational audit.

Why?

Because overwhelmingly the majority of citizens who responded to the poll WANT an expert and independent operational audit of the schools.

89% of respondents voted YES.

Only 11% of respondents voted NO to such an audit.

It shouldn't come as a big surprise that the School Administration does not want an audit that could possibly illuminate inefficiences or uncover poor management systems and/or processes. We already know that they have been unable (or unwilling) to account for hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars that were earmarked for school maintenance. What else might an operational audit uncover?

While I understand the administration's reluctance, wouldn't you think that the School Committee officials would feel obligated to those that elected them to support an audit that could likely save their constituents money...or point out ways to more efficiently run our schools? Or are they afraid that an operational audit will prove that they have allowed your tax dollars to be poorly managed, all the while telling you that the yearly budgets they have presented you are "cut to the bone"?

Let's not forget that the schools have asked for and received 10 overrides since 1998 that have cost the taxpayers in Hamilton and Wenham more than $39 million over that period.

Why is it that so often our elected officials support the citizens' causes...until they get elected? And then they ignore what the voters clearly want them to do.

News Flash To Our Elected Boards:

Residents of Hamilton and Wenham support an operational audit of the school system.

So how about it?

*****************************

On another note...They're baaack!

Look out. Here comes the School Department with another capital debt exclusion override request. This one is for over $1.5 million to replace the boiler at the Cutler School. Oh yes, and to install and upgrade air conditioning as well. We're being told that this is an "opportunity" for the taxpayers in our towns because the state will reimburse 40% to 48% of the costs.

Can you recall other times that argument has been used to cut into your paycheck?

The joint library comes to my mind. Beautiful building and all, and nice meeting rooms and computer stations, etc., but do you know what it costs to run each year? Last year it cost the taxpayers $572,291.00.

So hang on to your wallets, residents of Hamilton and Wenham, and just remember this:

Every Tax is a Cut in Pay.

Can you afford a(nother) pay cut today?

FUZZY MATH at Hamilton/Wenham School Department

The following is a letter from Enough Is Enough to the taxpayer-residents of Hamilton and Wenham:

It’s been a year since Enough is Enough (EIE), a citizens group promoting fiscal responsibility, asked for an operational audit of our schools. Our thinking was that this was an idea that all sides could agree upon, a way to get an expert, independent, outside look at how we could improve school operational efficiencies. We were dismayed when the idea was repeatedly ignored, confused and ultimately rejected by the school committee, the “Blue Ribbon Committee,” and even selectmen who claim they have no authority to ask the schools to entertain such an audit.

Last spring, EIE awakened citizens and defeated a capital debt exclusion override at Hamilton town meeting. The school district had been ignoring long-standing maintenance issues with our school buildings (a requirement under the two towns’ regional school agreement). A few school committee members publicly apologized for not making sure that the maintenance money budgeted was actually spent on maintenance issues. The school committee pressed forward with a capital debt exclusion override that addressed maintenance items that should have been completed with budgeted money and added many additional “wish list” items that went far beyond maintenance issues. EIE attempted to make a compromise that it could support: i.e. - limiting the town meeting article to health and safety items only, but this approach was rejected. As a result, the capital debt exclusion override went down to defeat.

The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School Committee and school support groups promised a more open process to explain to voters why a large capital debt exclusion override was needed, despite the fact that the schools had ten operational real estate tax overrides in past years and had not spent the money budgeted in their maintenance expense line item. EIE looked forward to the promise of more openness, but this never happened. Instead, EIE had to make many requests under the Massachusetts Public Records Law (MPRL) (M. G. L. Chapter 66, Section 10), which is very similar to the Federal Freedom of Information Act in an attempt to find out what was going on with maintenance in the schools. Request after request was met with partial non-specific responses. Instead of telling us what the schools did and did not spend money on, they gave EIE numbers that conflicted with school published reports to the community, along with vague expenditures on maintenance and “special projects”. Overall maintenance expenditures provided were far below those budgeted. When challenged, we were told that the schools do not maintain “budget versus actual reports”. We were appalled that either school accounting is not being done in accordance to acceptable practices or we were not being told the truth. “Fuzzy math” and obscuring the facts about maintenance, as well as other school expenditures, must come to an end.

The following are the results of our analysis of maintenance expense data obtained from the HWRSD:

A publication called " HWRSD Annual Report 2007- 2008 provided by HWRSD via mail to all citizens indicated that $461,103 was spent for maintenance during FY2007 and $459,067 was spent for maintenance during FY2008.

It should also be noted that the HWRSD budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2007 was $650,559; and likewise, the budgeted dollars for maintenance for FY2008 was $676,377. This budget information was also provided by the HWRSD via the MPRL request made by EiE.

When EIE received the Massachusetts Public Records Law info from the HWRSD Administration the FY2007 actual maintenance dollars spent were $402,504 and included $49,136 for special projects, undefined. This leaves $58,599 unspent for the period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Likewise, the FY2008 actual maintenance dollars spent were $380,726 and included $71,391 for special projects, again undefined. This leaves $78,341 unspent for the FY2008 period from one set of data to the other set of data and a big question mark as to the purpose of the special projects.

Clearly, there is a significant difference between the data provided in the HWRSD Annual Report versus the data provided to EiE by HWRSD Administration per the MPRL request. What data (of any data provided) is correct?

The largest variance of all is the FY2007 maintenance expense budget of $650,559 versus the maintenance actual 0f $402,504 which equals a variance of $248,055 less than the approved budget number of $650,559. Also the FY2008 maintenance budget of $676,377 versus the maintenance actual of $380,726, which equals a variance of $295,651 less than the approved budget number of $676,377.

A similar situation exists within the MPRL data received from HWRSD for FY2009 maintenance budget versus actual. The budget was $583,786 and total actual dollars spent were $469,353 which included $81,853 for special projects, undefined. The total variance between budget versus actual spent was $114,433.

For the three years discussed above (FY2007, FY2008 and FY2009) the total approved maintenance budget dollars were $1,910,722 and of that total, $658,139 were not spent for maintenance; and of the $1,252,583 dollars spent $202,380 were spent for special projects, undefined.

Where was the $658,139 spent if not spent on much needed maintenance?

Whatever the truth, EIE cautions the public to think hard when deciding if you trust the schools with another attempt at a very large capital debt exclusion override. Without the kind of openness that the taxpayers deserve, along with public discussion and debate, the numbers are nearly meaningless. The schools, because of regional school laws, and unlike our towns, do not have to spend money allocated in their yearly budget to the line item approved. It is clear from what we have learned that funds budgeted for maintenance were never spent and/or spent in ways that may not have been related to maintenance of school buildings.

It is in everyone’s interest to have safe and healthy schools. It is also in everyone’s interest to have a school committee that demands that citizens’ questions are answered in an open and forthright manner. The Hamilton-Wenham Regional School is a public school, funded by the public, and citizens have the right to know that their money is being spent in a fiscally responsible manner in the best interests of our children. We call once again for an independent outside operating audit that focuses on all aspects of school operations. Without this independent oversight, citizens should not be giving more money to the school system. We cannot rely on hope that they will use the money as appropriated, when this clearly has not been the case up until now.

(Please let us know your opinion by voting in the poll that is posted at the top left corner of this blog.)

Sincerely,

Enough is Enough

Robert Sica
James Kent
Elizabeth Dunbar
Edwin Howard
Warren Gray
Bruce Wadleigh
George LaMontagne
Jay Burnham

And the Answer Is...Cap Our Property Taxes!

THE VOTES ARE NOW IN

...Regarding the question: "Would you like to see a 0% increase in your property taxes for one year?"

59% voted YES, even with large cuts to services.

27% voted YES, provided there were minimal cuts to services.

14% voted YES, provided there were no cuts to services. This represented the "NO" vote, since we can assume there would be some cuts to services.

So 86% of respondents would like to see a cap on their property taxes for one year, even it it means a cut in services.

The answer to the question was what the tax watchdog group Enough Is Enough (EiE) was attempting to discover when it proposed that the Board of Selectmen (BoS) place a NON-BINDING citizen's advisory question on the warrant for the upcoming Special Town Meeting on October 17th. It was denied, unfortunately, and this writer would have liked to have seen a larger sampling of voters that a warrant article would have provided. However, the BoS themselves suggested that perhaps a poll could be taken using the town's new website...once some of the bugs had been worked out of it.

Not knowing when that might be, and in the interest of time, I decided to conduct the poll myself here on this blog site and the results speak for themselves. We seem to have the answer EiE's initiative would have provided...and perhaps some insight as to why the BoS denied placing the question on the warrant. It's the answer they surely did not want to hear.

But hear it they must... if only to grasp the seriousness of the economic plight of so many residents in Hamilton. The Wall Street Journal recently posted findings by The Tax Foundation showing the states with the highest property taxes as a percentage of income. Massachusetts ranked 9th with 4.1% of income paid toward property taxes. With the highest property tax rate on the North Shore, you can imagine the role Hamilton taxpayers play in that standing.

"Budgeting by override" fortunately ended last spring at the Annual Town Meeting. Now it seems as though voters also feel that increasing yearly budgets by +2.5% needs reconsideration, at least in the short term. Perhaps next time EiE will, instead of asking permission, submit a citizen's petition that will require the BoS to place it on a Town Meeting warrant so that voters can decide.

Don't be surprised, however, if it calls for a BINDING resolution next time.