The BOS first voted to not put the articles on the special town meeting warrant and not force the planning and advisory boards and themselves not to do a ton of extra work to get those articles researched by the fall special townm meeting. As put here earlier ( http://foxborough.wordpress.com/2011/09/

http://foxborough.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/a-seat-at-the-table/

http://foxborough.wordpress.com/2011/12/

http://foxborough.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/what-changed/ )

the selcetmen could not and did not outlaw gambling in town.

During the March 13th meeting, town manger advised the BOS chairman that the Kraft Group representatives should not be allowed to speak. Despite the attorney’s statement that they were not a bidder and would not be a bidder, they were not allowed to speak. Is this because it wouldthen be knowbn that town manager’s “hard ball” position is to threaten eminent domain during negotiations? A hard stance from both sides of a negotiation is to be expected; arbitrary threats of land taking should not. At one of the March meetings, Randy Scollins said he had opened the March 5th letter from Kraft Group stating they were not bidding, then Scollins went on to say he thought this was just for the first round and there would be a second round. How could both Scollins and Paicos not understand the Kraft Attorney saying at the March 13 meeting they were not and would not be a bidder for the billboard management deal?

More stunning is that Paicos did not have a copy of the letter in question, but Brue did and appeared to be the only Selectman that did. How did that happen?

Now we have another lawsuit against the board.

We also have an unhappy town manager. The “yes casino” crowd has talked about ways to and wanting to oust the town manager while the “no casino” crowd thinks he’s the cats meow. Despite articles in the newspaper, talk amomg locals and at local establishements the town manager first claimed he didn’t know about the talk of people wanting him ousted, then he says there was talk among board of selectmen members- how can he have it both ways and be a fly on the wall to know what more than one selectman has or has not discussed with other selectmen outside of their regular meetings? Anyone have whiplash over the town manager’s statements and actions? When the Selectmen were meeting to discuss the lawsuit and restraining order, the town manager was busy doing TV interviews said the chairman.

What say you?

If the town didn’t like the deal the negotiating teams finalized, it’s too late now to fix it to perfection. Citizens didn’t like the price guessing game of how much it would cost and who had to hook up to sewer, so the Kraft built, town owned estimated $7-10+ million value plant is getting flushed down the toilet. We’re not getting sign revenues and the good working relationship between the town and Kraft may have evaporated. One selectman said the town shouldn’t be in the advertising business so why did the town put out a new bid and try getting into the business? Why did the Kraft lawyer say “eminent domain” (what would compel town officials to think of taking something on Kraft surrounded land) as he was trying to read a statement for “Citizen’s input”? Is he a town citizen or does citizens input allow businesses and non-foxborough residents to speak? The agenda listed “topics not reasonably anticipated by the Chair 48 hours in advance of the meeting”. Paicos accused Harrington of knowing what the lawyer would be speaking about and Harrington accused Paicos of having said they could be part of it. Maybe Paicos didn’t fully read the letters sent to the town by Kraft and Harrington had no idea what the Kraft representatives were going to say. Paicos read part of a letter that said the Kraft representatives would be at the meeting- what else did the letter say- would it be reasonable to expect they would not say nothing? If the bid went out and no business bid and a new bid request had not been sent out yet, doesn’t that mean the bid process was closed and anyone who wanted to speak about it should be able to?

HICKEY: Start again on town counsel
“In a remarkable CYA (Cover Your Donkey) memorandum, Paicos put the board of selectmen on notice that they are ‘ignoring . . . Minimum Qualifications (as they) proceed to interview any or all candidate firms (2/23/12, Reporter).’
…
The RFP (Request for Funding Proposal) was written by Paicos, approved by selectmen and advertised. However, it appears either selectmen didn’t read all the details or town officials snuck through a couple of provisions that not all selectmen caught until too late.
…
But what of the RFP? Is it fatally flawed? In short, yes. The Paicos memo published in last week’s Reporter seems to give bad advice while actually giving them impetus to do the right thing. By urging selectmen to go ahead and make whatever decision they want, despite it looking “somewhat unusual to the ‘proposer community;’ (Town Counsel law firms) and may look somewhat odd to Foxborough’s citizens as well,” he is refreshingly blunt.

Columnist’s information on town counsel’s bill half-true

This is a tough time of year for the program schedule… we are squeezing in special programming (the Deliberative, the Forum), and they cause long cascades of odd start times that vary week to week as individual programs change their run lengths… most noticeable when there’s a board meeting replay that might be 45 minutes one week and  3 hours long the next.

“Cassie noted that a similar preservation effort was made in Foxboro during the construction of the Lodge At Foxborough apartment complex for the protection of the Oak Hairstreak butterfly.

In that case, acreage was set aside specifically to protect the butterfly.”

SATURDAY SNAPS: Water plant project a’flutter in Foxboro
“The proposal sounds similar to the replicate wetlands proposed by the would-be developers of a shopping mall at Sweeden’s Swamp in South Attleboro a quarter-century ago.”

Did the newspaper change or edit any of the letter?

Most projects require some form of mitigation. Foxboro Stadium, Cannon Forge, Witch Pond Estates, Gillette Stadium, Chestnut Green, Patriot Place, The Lodge at Foxborough to name a handful of large developments in Foxborough.

What other projects have required mitigation money?

Nearby are Walpole and Norfolk with state correctional facilities.

Walpole: “….that the Prison Mitigation money went through this year. D. Sullivan spoke to …. Patriot Place has not caused a dramatic impact to the Town. A.DeNapoli”

Norfolk
“1/28 6:05pm Is this true?

Can anyone explain why Walpole received $ 782,000 in mitigation funds while Norfolk received $ 88,000 ? Norfolk hosts three correctional facilities, two on Clark St and one on Industrial Way, while Walpole hosts only one at Cedar Junction. About 85 % of the land held by the Dep’t of Correction is in Norfolk while only 15 % is in Walpole. How do you justify Walpole receiving nine times as much ? Where can we find information on this? Maybe our town administrator can shed light on this. – SB”

Didn’t the BOS say we shouldn’t be in the advertising business? Town hopes to increase revenue from Route 1 ads

One resident claimed Gelerman should never have been let go and a couple of Selectmen were disappointed Gelerman and Cabral didn’t meet the Minimum Qualifications. Despite serving the town for over 30 years, who knows how good a job he did for Foxborough. Not having a lot of lawsuits does not necessarily equate to having worked out the best deal for the residents and Town of Foxborough.

On top of that, another resident has been outstanding on bringing up Town Hall missteps that have been going on for years under the current and past Town Managers. If former Town Counsel was so outstanding, how did those missteps go unnoticed?

• Town counsel re-applies
• ‘Flawed’ process

Mr. Tom Lynch
Town of Barnstable Delegate
Barnstable County Assembly of Delegates
Main Street, Route 6A
Barnstable, MA 02630

Dear Tom:

RE: Proposal for a New Autonomous & Unaccountable Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority

As your constituent, I am writing with grave concern about recently publicized news reports regarding a proposal for a new independent government entity called the Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority. With regard to the growing wastewater crisis on the Cape, ‘yes’ the fifteen towns of Cape Cod, in conjunction with the regional county government,
need to coordinate all of their thinking, efforts, planning, cooperation from a regional perspective. “Think regionally, act locally.” This is what has been jointly espoused by most of our elected state-level public office holders.

According to recently published statements collectively propounded by the entire Cape & Islands Legislative Delegation, here are the steps required to accomplish this goal: 1.) Work with local boards of selectmen, and the county, to build consensus for a regional plan; 2.) Work at the state level to garner support for solutions created through this local process; 3.) Work with our federal representatives to get all available federal resources.

Contrary to a recent recommendation publicly announced by the Barnstable County Special Commission on County Governance, creation of a new unaccountable and autonomous Cape Cod Regional Wastewater Authority, somewhat akin to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), is NOT the way to go!

As I have dreaded since last year, the Special Commission has finally come up with a recommendation which is utterly senseless, unreasonable and ill-advised. The rationale upon which it is based is faulty and defective. Any attempt to implement this unwarranted taxpayer funded scheme must be forthrightly dealt with accordingly. The respective Cape towns, individual taxpayers, residents and voters of Cape Cod will need to fight this
injustice and what amounts to a potential usurping of municipal autonomy and loss of our constitutional right to self-governance!

I look forward to your appropriate action and response at the upcoming meetings of the County Assembly of Delegates.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Ron Beaty

2010 Foxborough Commuter Feasibility Study Report

State Sen. Timilty rails against expanded train service in MetroWest

Read more: State Sen. Timilty rails against expanded train service in MetroWest – Walpole, MA – Wicked Local Walpole http://www.wickedlocal.com/medfield/archive/x550227996/State-Sen-Timilty-rails-against-expanded-train-service-in-MetroWest#ixzz1iR676K5o

495 Rail Study
What is Barrows’ position?

In one of the most contentious moments, Harrington attempted to end public comment, which was originally scheduled for 10 minutes but ran almost an hour.

Helen Merigan, a Central Street resident opposed to the casino, became upset, saying it was her right to speak and eliciting calls from the crowd of “Let her speak!”

Merigan was eventually allowed to speak, but had her microphone cut after she went over her allotted time. She received a loud ovation from crowd.

12/27 BOS Part 3
12/27 BOS Part 2

12/27 BOS Part 1

Paicos’ memo outlines position on gaming bylaw

The 5-0 vote was about the articles the Selectmen were presented with by the Town Manager and were looking at for that September 6 meeting. The Rev. Agenda 9/6/11 listed the one word “Gaming” for the 7:00 meeting. The Sun Chronicle article titled “Casinos will be topic in Foxboro” stated “Brue said the purpose of the two-hour public session will be ‘to discuss putting a warrant article for the special town meeting to look for zoning changes that would permit a casino up in that area.’ With a bill to allow three resort-style casinos and a slot machine parlor in play on Beacon Hill, Paicos in August proposed changing Foxboro’s zoning bylaw to allow such uses in the Route 1 area, on parcels of 50-acres or more, including on what is now land owned by the Kraft Group.”

They all felt that putting the proposed changes Paicos was asking for w on the FALL STM WARRANT would be too much of a rush and some thought the expanded gaming issue in town needed further examination than what had been done for the racino vote so decided not to include it for the FALL STM.

Only a few citizens were present at the meeting (9 spoke out of a town of 17,000) and they deviated from what was stated as what they were doing so this may have been an illegal discussion and vote. Was it? The next week, the matter was brought up again and a few Selectmen decided they had jumped the gun on it the week before and input from more than 9 residents out of 17,000 should have been sought.

The media is spinning this to say that the Selectmen outlawed gambling in Foxborough in September. They did not. The vote was to not support that zoning amendment proposal and not to include it in the FALL STM. They went further that first night by adding their own moral opinions into the mix, which in many eyes tarnished the process for a week. The Selectmen said gambling in town should be up to voters by a ballot vote. When will that happen?

The 5-0 vote was supposed to be about the articles the Selectmen were presented with by the Town Manager and were looking at for that September 6 meeting. The Rev. Agenda 9/6/11 listed the one word “Gaming” for the 7:00 meeting. The Sun Chronicle article titled “Casinos will be topic in Foxboro” stated “Brue said the purpose of the two-hour public session will be ‘to discuss putting a warrant article for the special town meeting to look for zoning changes that would permit a casino up in that area.’ With a bill to allow three resort-style casinos and a slot machine parlor in play on Beacon Hill, Paicos in August proposed changing Foxboro’s zoning bylaw to allow such uses in the Route 1 area, on parcels of 50-acres or more, including on what is now land owned by the Kraft Group.”

Instead, they went further and voted on an issue affecting the entire town. What they were supposed to be voting on as discussed during that meeting was whether the proposed amendments should be included in the Special Town Meeting. They all felt that it would be too much of a rush and some thought the expanded gaming issue in town needed further examination than what had been done for the racino vote so decided not to include it for the FALL STM.

Only a few citizens were present at the meeting (9 spoke out of a town of 17,000) and they deviated from what was stated as what they were doing so this may have been an illegal discussion and vote. Was it? The next week, the matter was brought up again and a few Selectmen decided they had jumped the gun on it the week before. Minutes of the 9/13/11 Meeting and Foxboro selectmen looking for new deal on zoning bylaw.

The media is spinning this to say that the Selectmen outlawed gambling in Foxborough in September. They did not. The vote was to not support that zoning amendment proposal and not to include it in the FALL STM. They went further that first night by adding their own moral opinions into the mix, which in many eyes tarnished the process for a week. If the Selectmen outlawed gambling in town, why are the Massachusetts State Lottery machines still churning out tickets and residents buying scratch tickets in Foxborough?

The Selectmen said gambling in town should be up to voters by a ballot vote. When will that happen?

Wasn’t the Conservation Commission not managing the Cocasset River Park, but had ceded it to the Recreation Department (who were the ones with the keys)? Or – if they thought they were – were doing a bad job of it. After years of not paying attention to that land, they then whine about it being neglected and tried to shove a non-pre-existing use and incompatible use dog park into the area instead of somewhere more compatible. Now they want to amend the State legislation to shove more crud upon the citizens becauae they didn’t like the outcome of the dog park. How about putting the dog park on the unsellable Oak Street property? Read on about the entire situation: Cocasset River Park, more.

“Voters at the Dec. 5 special town meeting will decide whether to ask the Legislature to take the conservation commission out from direct control of the town manager, by amending the act that created Foxboro’s town manager form of government…..

At the town-owned former Camp Lincoln Hill, five house lots with frontage on Oak Street were under consideration for sale, but officials recently discovered that a town meeting in the early 1970s designated that land for conservation and recreation uses only…..

Those potential house lots will not be sold, Brue said, citing this as an example of how the conservation commission already has the authority to manage its land under the Town Manager Act. “

Why try to do this at Town Meeting. It was a Ballot Question the first time around; shouldn’t changes to it begin through a ballot question?

http://www.sunchronicle.com/articles/2011/11/17/news/10503129.txt

At that time Foxborough- being a town of more than 12,000- already had a full-time VSO. “Along with today’s request, DVS has recently implemented an electronic benefit tracking and certification system, Web-VSMIS (Veterans Services Management Information Systems), to reduce the paperwork submission process and also increase efficiency and accuracy for veterans’ agents and accounting departments in cities and towns. This additional assistance will provide municipalities with an improved system as they work to comply with Chapter 115.”

We have a fulll-time VSO, a Veteran Services Advisory Committee, and a clerk, so, why does our VSO and others think he should be part of a 4-town district with at minimum- and required by law all be full-time employees- a director, one agent, and two clerks? Is the current workload too much for Foxborough’s VSO? Does he need a clerk to help with the paperwork? Will he need a clerk or assistant to help with his duties or the Web-VSMIS system?

If this regionalization plan is implemented, what will each employee be paid? What wil it cost each town? What will be the employees required raises and how often? Where will their headquarters be? Those are some of the basic questions that should be answered before any decisions are made. Why would this be a good idea, when the thought of sharing a VSO with Walpole was undeniably unwanted? Do Foxborough veterans care if their VSO isn’t a resident of the town?

See also:

1. Kerry names Foxboro native to veterans post: Joseph Bykowski
2. Veterans’ Task Force Established

October 23rd, 2011: Helping ensure that Massachusetts veterans and their families have access to the full range of benefits and services offered to them, Attorney General Martha Coakley has created an office-wide task force focused on this effort.

3. Regional services eyed for veterans
4. Foxborough Veteran Services Department

Vision Statement

Advocate for Foxborough veterans, dependants and widows; providing access to every federal, state and local service & benefit to which they are entitled.

Mission Statement

Provide veterans access and referral to education, training and employment services. Help veterans with service record concerns. Provide direct service to veterans by answering questions and recommending resources. Counsel veterans and provide referrals to other professional services as necessary. Assist eligible veterans in applying for state wartime bonuses and annuities. Guide and assist veterans with disability claims to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Administer Massachusetts General Law Chapter 115 financial assistance and emergency financial aid to elibible veterans, dependants and widows. Additionally Foxborough Veteran Services will facilitate a veteran mutual support group.

5. Veterans Services Advisory Committee
6. Foxborough is looking into a proposal that may join a four-town veterans’ district.
7. Foxboro touts regionalizing veterans services
8. Mansfield may join a four-town veterans’ district
9. Veterans’ support in place while regionalization explored in Norton and Easton
10. Massachusetts Department of Veterans’ Services

Reminder: the Planning Board will host a public information forum on this topic  on Wednesday, October 26th, at 7:30 p.m. at the Florence Sawyer School Auditorium.

—Roland

Bolton Town Green Proposal

Frequently Asked Questions

 1.   What is this about, in a nutshell?

This proposal recommends a vetted, sensible approach to the problem of the languishing and contaminated former Smith garage property in the center of town. The property has been for sale for years. It is out-of-compliance with the DEP. The buildings have been ordered vacated by the Board of Health due to fail septic systems. It is deteriorating rapidly. The proposal recommends that the town purchase these 8+acres in the very heart of the town center for $230,000 (a price recommended by a respected appraisal firm). The town would then take over and oversee the clean up, and apply for a series of grants to fund the work. The town will reserve a portion of the cleaned-up property for a much-desired Town Green, and sell a portion to a private developer to build housing, both market-rate and affordable. The back of the lot would be left as forest with a possible trail access to the Powder House Conservation Area to the northeast. There are many benefits, but we believe that the biggest is that this is an incredible opportunity to establish a Bolton Town Green in the exact place where a Town Green should be, the very center of town.

2.   Have town boards reviewed this proposal?

Yes. The major boards have reviewed the proposal. In fact, eight town boards are co-sponsoring the article on the Special Town Meeting Warrant. These include: Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust, Housing Authority, Parks and Recreation Commission, Historical Commission, Economic Development Committee, and the Public Ways Safety Committee.

3.   Has the proposal received any endorsements?

Yes. Six town boards have so far endorsed the proposal: Planning Board, Affordable Housing Trust, Housing Authority, Parks and Recreation Commission, Historical Commission, Public Ways Safety Committee. In addition, the Advisory Committee, in an informal poll taken at its meeting of October 12, showed four members supporting and one member undecided. Selectman Dave Lindsay expressed support in a letter to the editor in the Common on October 14. Business leaders such as Brian Lynch (The International) and Rich Pelletier (Nashoba Valley Winery) have endorsed the proposal.

 4.   So what is this going to cost?

The total project budget is $765,000. The Affordable Housing Trust will kick in $125,000 (because the project includes an affordable housing component), which reduces the amount needed to borrow for the project to $640,000, and that is the amount—$640,000— requested on the Special Town Meeting warrant article. $640,000 includes costs for cleaning up the property. Those costs will very likely be paid for by grants. Including the grants, this reduces the amount actually needed to borrow for the project to $440,000. Funds will not be borrowed all at once. They will be borrowed over a six-year period as they are needed. Further, it is anticipated that the piece that is sold to a developer will generate some amount of cash, possibly $150,000, and that even further reduces the amount that will need to be borrowed. And when it’s all completed (approx. 7 years), that piece of property will be generating much, much more in tax revenue ($81,000 per year) than it does now ($14,000 per year), or ever has. In effect, the town is making an investment that will have a payback—and as part of the deal we get a beautiful town green.

5.   Ok, so what’s it going to cost me?

If, as expected, the town receives clean up grants from Mass Development and EPA, the average single family home assessed at $455,800 will see a decrease in taxes of $18 per year over twenty years. The basic reason for this is that the project will convert a blighted property of reduced value into an attractive property of higher value—thus it will generate much more in property taxes than it ever has. Over the first years of the project—while it is off the tax roles during clean up—it will increase the average homeowner’s taxes by $15 per year for the first five years. This proposal is unique in that it will generate a return in the form of increased revenues to the town (which the town could use to reduce taxes) for an investment in the first five years.

We believe that it also useful to keep in mind that beautifying the town in this way will upgrade the town in the eyes of people all over the region, and thus protect and enhance home values of every homeowner.

6.   Is this a final fixed plan for approval?

The Partners for Planning have prepared a conceptual plan for the town to consider. We believe it is well thought out and makes sense from an aesthetic and financial perspective. As part of the proposal, we recommend that the Selectmen create and appoint a Committee (Bolton Green Development Committee, or similar), to develop and manage the final plan in a manner similar to the construction committees of the Public Safety Building and Library projects. Not only will the Committee members and citizens have ideas for making the plan better, but when developers prepare their proposals, they will have ideas as well.

7.  What are the risks?

The biggest risk is the time needed to finalize and execute the plan. The project rolls out over roughly 7 years—three years for clean up, 1-2 years for build-out, 1-2 years to sell and occupy the housing to start collecting tax revenue. Delays in clean up could push the project out. Uncertainty regarding the housing market 3-5 years out could also impact the timeline. A recent survey of several developers indicated significant early interest on their part in the project, however, given the market volatility of the last several years, projecting out 3-5 years is difficult. The financial impact of a delay of two years in this project is $25 to the average tax bill of the first 5 years of the project.

Cleaning up the site is not a significant risk as the contamination is well documented so cost estimates are very accurate. Moreover, additional funds and protections are available should the town need them for unexpected overages. It is a possibility that funds from EPA will fall victim to the budget cuts in Washington. EPA funds are not critical to the proposal.

8.   What happens if the town does not purchase the site?

The property has been for sale for several years (approx 7). There has been no progress on the clean up since 2008 and the property is in a state of non-compliance with DEP. An expired enforcement agreement from Board of Health will not allow any use of the buildings or residences unless the septic systems are brought up to code. The property is not being maintained. It is possible that it will continue to be marketed as house lots or a small 40B. It is also possible that it will continue on as a languishing blighted site. It is even possible that it would go quickly to auction or fire sale. Possibly a speculative commercial developer would pick it up on hopes of getting a change of zoning passed through a future town meeting. The longer it remains vacant and uncared for, the higher the possibility that it could become tied up in legal or other entanglements.

But the bigger worry that some have voiced is that the property could be sold and combined with up to 100 acres of available land-locked back lots to constitute a very large development—some estimates show that 200 40B units could be built on the back lots.

9.   Will the town be able to find a developer to build the housing?

The Partners have interviewed a number of developers who are interested in the project. A detailed pro forma was reviewed with a developer and representatives from the Planning Board and Affordable Housing Trust, who concluded that the project was viable.

10.    Will commercial development be allowed?

Possibly, if the Bolton Green Development Committee recommends it. The property is zoned residential and it is in an area whose primary use is residential. The housing part of the proposal would be done under a 40B special permit and rules allow for “incidental” commercial use, comprising less than 25% of total square footage. The proposal calls for the creation of a Selectman-appointed Town Green Development Commiittee (or equivalent). It would fall with that group to request, analyze, and make recommendations as to which developer proposals they would accept for the build out. There are many interesting possibilities that one can imagine as to the final configuration. The proposal as it is now configured would actually aid current contiguous businesses by providing off street parking.

11. What happens if something doesn’t go as planned?

Any project has risks. The proposal that the Partners have presented makes every effort to ensure that appropriate contingences have been provided to allow for unexpected events. The amount of grants available for the clean up, for instance, far exceeds the expected cost. The Town can also purchase an insurance policy to protect them from unexpected events in the process. There are numerous points in the budget and financials where conservative assumptions have been applied. The proposed budget includes a direct unallocated contingency of 7%. In addition, funds received for the sale of a portion of the property are not included in the pro forma. The reason for this is to give the town wide latitude in considering a variety of proposals from developers at that juncture. We estimate that the value of that portion of the property (cleaned up) will exceed $150,000. These are a few examples of the conservative approach toward the financials.

12.   This is a contaminated site, what liabilities would the town assume?

The Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office has promised to work with Bolton to protect it from the liability that attaches to owners and operators of contaminated property. Referred to as a “Covenant Not to Sue”, this is a key tool created to encourage the clean up and redevelopment of problem sites. In exchange for a promise to clean up the property, a Brownfields “Covenant Not to Sue” offers relief from claims by third parties and/or the Commonwealth for contribution, cost recovery, or property damage under Chapter 21E, as well as property damage under the common law. The Partners have been in contact with the Attorney General’s Office who has visited Bolton and participated in a forum with DEP on the cleanup of the Smith Property. The Attorney General’s Office is available to start the process, which takes about 6 weeks to put in place, as soon as the Town is ready.

13.   With the local and national economy in dire straits, and the real estate market abysmal, how can the town afford to purchase and own this property?

This proposal qualifies the town to receive financial assistance in several ways: 1) the town will qualify for grants to fund the assessment and remediation of the environmental contamination on the property—those grants likely total in excess of $200,000; 2) the Affordable Housing Trust will contribute $125,000 toward the project; and 3) the sale of a portion of the property to a developer for the housing will generate an estimated $150,000. Because the plan involves housing that will generate property and excise taxes, the project will produce a positive cash flow by year 7 and a complete payback in year 12 (assuming no significant delays in the schedule). Over 20 years the project will actually generate a positive cash contribution of $410,000 to the town at a net present value of 3%—all while preserving and enhancing the beauty and character of the town. Further, the town’s debt will decline over the next five years at a significant rate.

14.  What will happen to town debt?

Even with the addition of $440,000 of borrowing (the amount expected to be needed for this project), town debt will still decrease 35% over the next five years—from $16.9 million in 2012 to $10.9 million in 2016. The reality is that the additional amount that this proposal adds to the debt will barely slow the decline. So the piece of your property tax bill that represents town debt will go down even with this possible purchase.

This chart of course does not show possible future borrowings. It is unlikely that there would be a significant impact to these numbers based on known usual requests (DPW equipment, public safety capital items, etc). Even an expenditure such as the Fyfeshire dam would only slow the overwhelming decline in the debt schedule. A new school may be necessary in the future, but it is unlikely in our opinion to impact this debt schedule significantly in the time horizon we are talking about with this project.

15.   Why does the article request $640,000 of borrowing and you are projecting only $440,000 of borrowing?

Bond Counsel has advised the town that the borrowing request must include the amount we expect to be covered by grants, since we will not have them in hand at the time of town meeting. We have a high degree of confidence in the town’s ability to successfully secure grants for the purpose of clean up. The appropriate granting agencies have reviewed the project and have given every positive indication that they can short of an actual commitment. We cannot apply for the major grants unless or until the town owns the property.

 16.   If the price is really so low, might it go even lower?

The valuation was determined by a professional independent appraisal that was commissioned by Partners For Planning. The appraisal was done by one of the most respected firms in the state and reflects a price that we feel is both fair to the owner (a Bolton resident) and is a good deal for the town.

17.   Who are Partners For Planning anyway?

Partners For Planning is a group of 17 residents that came together out of shared concern for the future of the town center. We have all served the town at one time or another in elected or appointed positions. We don’t all live in the center; in fact, only 5 of the group live in the center. In 2010, two different high-impact commercial proposals were floated for the Smith property, and we set out as a goal to see if we could come up with an alternative vision for the property that was at once respectful of the history and residential use of the town center, and took maximum advantage of the potential of the location. We think we’ve done that and along the way found a way to make the whole proposal financially reasonable for the town.

The group includes: Iris Berdrow, Barbara Bing, Stephen Bing, Al Ferry, Jean Heaton, Dick Heaton, Rob Held, Scottie Held, Rev. Richard Jones, Cia Ochsenbein, Roland Ochsenbein, Alice Roemer, Bob Roemer, Ken Troup, Michelle Tuck, Eileen Griffin Wright, Dave Wylie.

 18.   The work on this project appears very professionally prepared—is Partners For Planning paying people to work on this proposal?

No. No member of Partners For Planning has received any remuneration for services. We have done this work on our own time and at our own expense. We have purchased the following specialized services: a professional property appraisal, legal advice relating to the environmental issues, engineering analysis relating to septic and water on the site.

19.  Why wouldn’t a developer just buy it, so that the townspeople wouldn’t have to foot the bill for the purchase?

The property has been for sale for about 7 years. It is difficult to envision a plan that provides an acceptable risk/return for a private investor. The combination of the acquisition cost plus the clean up cost is an initial hurdle. Add in the impact of site constraints such as the brook, wetlands, zoning, septic capacity, lot shape…and the challenge is significant. To make something work there from a private investment perspective, it appears that the scale must be large—if commercial that means large national chains with big footprints, if 40B that means dense development and purchasing the backlots to make a large-scale development.

20.  Why is this “special interest group” getting a special town meeting, when the costs of holding one are substantial?

The special interest of this group is truly the broad public benefit that such a project embodies. The group—individually and collectively—has no financial or any other kind of interest in this project except for the public good and respect for the rich history and character of Bolton. It is composed of a wide-ranging group of residents who believe that this is a unique opportunity to permanently enhance the beauty and character of the town and to realize a vision for the creation of a Town Green in the very heart of the town center—right where a Town Green should be. The opportunity is of such significance and long-term impact that it deserves to be put before the town.

Further, we believe that there is a small window of opportunity remaining to act on this.

21. The land is badly contaminated. What are the estimated clean-up costs, and who would pay for them?

The town will be eligible to apply for grants from state and federal sources to fund the clean up. The Partners have met with both of the primary sources of funding (Mass Development and the EPA), and believe that there is a high degree of probability that the town will be successful in procuring grants to cover at least 80% of the cleanup costs.  Estimates put the cleanup costs at $200K-$225K. Total grants available exceed $800,000. These are not available (as grants) to a private developer.

 22.  Is the plan to have the town itself develop the land, or would the town plan to sell the land to an outside developer?

The town would sell a portion of the property to a private developer to build and market the housing, as well as provide the necessary infrastructure—power, water, septic. The overall process would be managed by a Bolton Town Green Development Committee, a new town body that we recommend be established. It would be appointed by, and report to, the Board of Selectmen. This Committee would solicit proposals from developers in an RFP process under the Chapter 30B guidelines, and sell the property to the developer with the best overall proposal as judged by the Committee’s criteria for evaluation.

23.  If the town does buy the property, then what?

The selectmen would appoint the Bolton Green Development Committee (or equivalent) to oversee the project in a way similar to the construction committees that were established to oversee the design and construction of the public safety facility and library. The budget includes funds to hire a project manager just as the library and public safety committees did, as well as other consultants to assist with grant writing and other engineering. This Committee would hold open meetings and hearings to finalize a design, oversee the cleanup, and the choice of a housing developer. They would report to the Board of Selectmen.

FAQs Prepared by Partners For Planning