:) We are going to have so much fun together Pshooter! :)

HERE WAS ANOTHER NICE PIECE OF INFO I FOUND..

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9728485/REP … AM-MA-July

PShooter wrote:

LIZdaGNOME wrote:

HERE WAS ANOTHER NICE PIECE OF INFO I FOUND..

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9728485/REP … AM-MA-July

"The BOS has committed to selling the project"

They should not be spearheading this project or "selling" it to anyone. And, this is from the previous Bidder's Conference. When are we going to find out about the new bids on the new RFP? At Town Meeting? If your O.K. with voting for this, then can you give me a blank check?
Can they do anything right?

PShooter

i found this tonite so who knows when we will get the newest bidders conference report from 9/17?

The sad part is I think I may be a geezer???? I remember Brett when he was drafted by Atlanta......

Just for the record, I don't see 16 games for Brett. :)

LIZdaGNOME wrote:

town bylaws are pretty clear WHO can spend $..and its NOT THE BOS..

B. To employ consultants, legal counsel and full or part-time staff, to contract for
administrative and support goods and services, and to expend up to ten (10)
percent of Trust Fund’s receipts for these purposes.

On the site from Liz--the conference report, it says the trust fund has $100,000. 10% of that for consultants would be $10,000. We've already paid about $30,000 and have another 30 or so to pay.

Does anyone know the exact amount in the fund? Surely there isn't $600,000 in the fund.

Oops. They did it again.

Not only did they spend money they had no authority to spend, but they over-spent what was allowed.

Last edited by Molly (2009-09-23 06:55:11)

Molly wrote:

Does anyone know the exact amount in the fund? Surely there isn't $600,000 in the fund. Oops. They did it again. Not only did they spend money they had no authority to spend, but they over-spent what was allowed.

Molly, I've heard varying amounts from Brucey, Cronie, etc.. 140K, is the most I've heard. I don't know if that's accurate, or includes $ they've already illegally spent.

Way to go Liz & Molly...see the cockroaches scurrying for the shadows..the light, it burns.

PShooter

went to the assesors and the zoning dept and what slager put in his paper is crap.... i got some great info

Here's a discussion from 7/7 with the BOS & Dick Heaton. The "new" document they discuss is from 1977!  Dick & Brucey attempt to paraphrase K&P's opinion that what was done in 1977, can be undone at Town Mtg. if the Article is worded right & it passes.

The Deed is worded as, "..do hereby take in fee simple for school or municipal buildings, and/or recreational, playground, and park purposes.."




ARTICLE 2
To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen, pursuant to G.L. c. 40, s.15A, to lease the care and custody of the real property and improvements thereon known as Westfield Site, more specifically located at Charlotte Furnace Road, consisting of 18.5 acres, more or less, and identified on Wareham Assessor's Map 105, Parcel 1001 and Assessors’ Map 105A, Parcels 107 through 130 and Parcels 162 through 175 and Parcels 198 through 213 and Parcels 215 through 221 and Parcels 229 through 238 and Parcels 259 through 287, and described in the instrument recorded with the Plymouth District Registry of Deeds in Book 4314, Page 189, said portion containing 24.49 acres, more or less, being the premises shown as Westfield Overall Plan surveyed by G.A.F Engineering on May 11, 2006, to be placed under the Selectmen’s care and custody for the purposes of continuing and expanding the use of the parcel for affordable senior rental housing and further, to authorize the Board of Selectmen, if the Board of Selectmen so vote, to lease or convey said property and improvements for the purposes of improving, expanding and the perpetual management of the property for affordable rental housing pursuant to the requirements of G.L. c.40, s.3 and G.L. c.30B, et seq. and upon terms and conditions acceptable to the Board of Selectmen and pursuant to the authority granted the Board of Selectmen by G.L. c.44, s.55C, and further, that if the Board of Selectmen is to lease for a maximum of 99 years said property, that lease be subject to the prior placement of a restriction on said property, including but not limited to that found at G.L. c.184, ss.31-33, ensuring that all dwelling units constructed thereon be restricted for affordable housing purposes in perpetuity; or take any other action thereon or to do or act in any manner relative thereto. Inserted by the Board of Selectmen.

VOTE NO ON Article 2

PShooter

The FinCom voted 3-5-0 against Article 2, and while their were various reasons, let me share some of my misgivings about this.

But first a bit of background-I was on a Housing Authority-and yes, in the dim and distant past.  One thing that I learned was that seniors wanted to be near "downtown," close to City Hall, close to banks, close to most everything, and that experience-and that opinion has not changed- has stuck with me over the years and I will come back to it later, it is central to why I was  a "no" vote.

But first let me turn to something else.  In the Town Bylaws the following is an integral part:

"To employ consultants, legal counsel and full or part-time staff, to contract for administrative and support goods and services, and to expend up to ten (10) percent of Trust Fund’s receipts for these purposes"

So, if my math is correct, and if there was $120,000 in the Trust, does that not work out to $12,000 that could be spent, and I might add that the paragraph just before the one cited said:

"The Trust Fund shall have the powers and duties specified in G.L. c.44, s.55C if provided that it shall have no ability to borrow money, or mortgage or pledge trust assets without prior Town Meeting approval."

Perhaps the argument would be advanced that we had no Trust Authority in place and therefore the bylaw was not and is not operative.  I would find that argument to be highly specious. Or that "further study" was voted, but then you run into the percentage limitation.

Also, in another part of the bylaw, is a provision that as I read it, mandates that if sewer is available, you must hook in and although there is a "grace period" of five years, it is just that, a delay.

But on to other issues.  When the FinCom had to vote, the final bids were two days away, and I for one refused to vote in the affirmative on a major project without the financial details.

Then they came in, and the BOS would have us believe that we have five, but in reality we have two.  Yes, there are five pieces of paper, but take a closer look; one so-called bid, has 5 units under $500, 75 at $500 to $1,000 and (ready for this?) 46 over $1,000. Frankly, i wish it were so, that seniors in Wareham could afford $1,000 units, but sadly I think that is not the case,  Two of the others had a total of 26 units under $500 and a  whopping 190 at $500 to over $1,000.

Question?  Why would the developers put in any bid, why go to the trouble if you knew that you would lose? Well, tell you what as a deviloper approaches a Selectmen-"remember I tried to help you (reader put in years) years ago, remember? well now I need a favor also."

So, I say we have two bids, not five.

The BOS is trying to suggest that the project will bring in revenues of at least $250,000 a year, but in the two bids on the worksheet presented by Mr Heaton. one adds up to $164,000 and the other to about $150,000, both well short of $250,000.

Another thing that is "odd" on the spreadsheet is that the auto excise taxes to be collected (as part of the $150,000 figures) are suggested to be around $60,000 at $200 a car.  Well that means if I have done the math correctly, that we should have something approach 300 cars there. Are we to believe that not only will each senior have a car, but two cars?

Continuing on with this theme, Sewer and Water fees are suggested at about $50,000 and here I have two observations.  The first is that the money does not come to the town, but yes indirectly it does "help" the town, but that leads me to my next observation.  There is no mention of cost, and I did ask Heaton about this, and never got an answer.  In fact, in an email he opined to me that is was the most  "important" question.

Now, let's get to what really bothered me about all of this.

We are totally ignoring the seniors, particularly at Agawam, and now drawing on my past knowledge and feeling that if Agawam could be brought up snuff, that the seniors would much prefer to stay there. And that others would be delighted to move in there.

"Adopted by the Wareham Board of Selectmen at a meeting of June 25, 2004.

http://www.wareham.ma.us/Public_Documen … =S006AE4C7


“The 104 units of public housing that the Wareham Housing Authority administers is an aging stock with a design that is not well suited to the elderly and disabled. Agawam Village was built in 1964 and is of such poor quality that the WHA recommends it be demolished and replaced with modern units." (source:  "Meeting Housing Needs in Wareham, 2005")

And that was five years ago, actually more. And nothing has been done, nothing.  My suggestion right along has been that since this is relatively close to downtown, that is a plus, and if the CPC money could be used to build new at Westfiled, why not at Agawam?  Build 40 new units, move the people over, then renovate the old units, and wind up with an added 40 units, close to downtown.

Oh, and in ancillary information, the project has "zero" set aside for security, like in nothing. But why worry about that, these old folks just stay in their rooms all day anyway, right?

The arguments that will be marshaled against this will be as follows:

"First things first, we build Westfield and then we turn to Agawam"

A second argument will be that "it is a state facility, and we can do nothing."

The third will be, look at all the tax dollars, and that is valid, though as pointed  out, the good-for-the-newspaper-numbers do not square with the numbers from Mr Heaton. 

Let's take those is in order.  Simple logic-I know,in Wareham?-will dictate that if we start one project with public funds, federal or state, you will be off the list for-pick a number-15 years.  Imagine if Boston came up with a wonderful $10 billion project for the elderly, after the $15 billion spent on the Big Dig, the response would be "the end of the line is back there."

And if Westfield fails, well then we can put our collective shoulders to the wheel and and pester every person in Boston until we get results.

You watch, every other phrase will have something about how much we care about the seniors at Agawam, right you are, and now put that cat back in bag!! Five years, nothing--do they all think that the seniors are stupid?

I can not understand why Agawam was not at the forefront of their thinking.

Bravo Mr. (may I call you Dick) Paulsen,
You clearly have done your homework and in total, that's all that should need to be said for why Wareham voters should vote no on Article 2 !
Unfortunately other leaders will go on and on as they have for several months (if not years) supporting this absolute waste of time, legal fees and Housing Trust Funds (illegally I might add) for a "pipe dream".
And another observation is why hasn't the Housing Authority been included in any of these efforts ?
I say let's take care of the seniors we have in our existing housing and then find Town owned land closer to all the amenities that are most important to them.
TAKE THE BOS OUT OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS.
They don't have a clue.  (Maybe Mr. Cruz does but he hasn't proven it yet.)
Well done.

Mr. Paulsen said,

Another thing that is "odd" on the spreadsheet is that the auto excise taxes to be collected (as part of the $150,000 figures) are suggested to be around $60,000 at $200 a car.  Well that means if I have done the math correctly, that we should have something approach 300 cars there. Are we to believe that not only will each senior have a car, but two cars?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole purpose (we are lead to believe) is to help seniors in Wareham. If that is the case, the town is already collecting excise tax on these vehicles. So, even if it's only HALF of existing Wareham seniors on the waiting list, you can knock that figure down by half or more.

I could sit here and go over every problem I have with these proposals, but there are so many. In my opinion, the proposals were hurried and contain calculations that are way out of whack with reality.

Vote NO on article #2....then let's get a comprehensive study of senior housing and truly help our seniors without risking our town.

This is in reply to Searay and the issue of where the money is coming from.

The state DOR has a service for towns that is both comprehensive and and essentially free where they will come in, examine the situation and make recommendations.  Wareham did this about ten years ago, and not much came of it but hopefully this time we will listen and implement their suggestions.  We are going to try and go this route again, but there is no guarantee that they will be on our doorsteps in near future, but the ball is rolling.

Let me bore you a bit-or not- with a letter sent back by DOR to Ipswich in 2007:

"We based our findings and recommendations on site visits by a technical assistance team consisting of staff from the DLS Municipal Data Management & Technical Assistance Bureau (MDM/TAB), Bureau of Local Assessment (BLA), and Bureau of Accounts (BOA). During these visits and by telephone, the team interviewed and received information from the members of the board of selectmen, town manager, finance director/town accountant, treasurer/collector, assistant treasurer/collector, management information systems director, chief assessor, and the assistant purchasing agent, as well as other staff members, as available, in each office.
DLS staff examined such documents as the tax recapitulation sheet, warrants, annual budgets, balance sheets, cash reconciliation reports, statements of indebtedness, as well as other assorted financial records. Other documents reviewed included the town charter and bylaws, administrative manual of the Town of Ipswich, board of selectmen and finance committee meeting minutes, various department procedure manuals, the Moody’s Bond Rating Report, and outside audit reports and management letters for FY2006 and FY2005 completed by Sullivan, Rogers & Company and completed by Melanson, Health & Company in FY2004.
In reviewing the town’s financial management practices, we focused on:

1. Town government structure in the context of the duties and responsibilities of financial officers;
2. The town’s budget, warrant and capital planning processes;
3. The degree of coordination and communication that exists between and among boards, officials and staff involved in the financial management function; and
4. The general efficiency of financial operations measured by the town’s success in maximizing resources and minimizing costs."

What DOR did for Wareham and when:
Wareham Revenue/Expenditure Forecast, 1987
Review of Assessing Office, 1992
Financial Management Review, 2001
(Source: http://www.mass.gov/Ador/docs/dls/publ/misc/tabroch.pdf)

The FinCom is in the process of developing a five year forecast that will have several elements, but will focus on what probably will be inevitable, that we have a structural deficit, meaning that our expenses are moving up more rapidly then our ability to pay them. We only have annual amounts under 2 1/2 that add up to about $700,000 a year, and "new growth" that adds anywhere from $300,000 to $700,000 (the mall). As a consequence, and on average,we have about $1.2 million a year of funding that we more or less control.

And having a deficit in this type of analysis is not unusual; in fact going through the exercise leads most towns to the same conclusion-a long term deficit.  The issue, once we get some feeling for the number, is obvioulsy what to do.

For instance, Arlington five years ago, did this, concluded that they would have a deficit of $12 million out (then) five years and then came back to the town, laid out the issues-again looking forward five years-and instead of dealing with issues each year, persuaded the voters to buy-in to the override.

Hopefully between what DOR might suggest and what we can-and should-do on our own, we will come up with a viable plan, but we are not going to wait for DOR, we have to do this and now, like right now.

Many people will say, get the new growth up, generate more tax revenue, and they are well intentioned, but let's be candid about this, that has been the rallying cry for 15 years, and to what effect? 

No, at the end of the day, I don't  think that revenue generation will be name of the game.  So, if not revenues, then what?  Well, in that case, it is either cut expenses and/or consider an over-ride.

Given the current structure of town government, cutting current expenses is very difficult without resorting to either layoffs or furloughs, or both.  Which leads to what is becoming an overused, and increasingly maligned word, regionalism. Labor, is particularly concerned, and with good reason.

Does it make sense in this day and age?  Do we need 330 fire departments, and 330 separate school departments?

Here is an interesting example, Fairfax County, Virginia has a school budget of $2.2 billion dollars and 168,384 students.  They have one superintendent, and the recent results:  2009 SAT for Fairfax, 1664, and the rest of the United States, 1509.  Now, you can tell me that the demographics are different, etc and I understand that but might it not be that because of focus emanating from the top, that at least some of the excellent results are coming about because of doing things "differently?"

And I might add, Fairfax County is building the equivalent of 2 to 3 new high schools a year.

Let me ask a question, you fall to the floor, call 911 and in walks a guy with an arm patch from Marion, are you going to say, hey get out of here, I am going to wait for the Wareham EMS.  We all know the answer to that one.

People abhor change, and believe me, I do not underestimate the power of the status quo, but if we don't change our form of government, the only change we will see is a significant increase in taxes.  And just to be clear, when I say change the form of government, I am not referring to changing the form of our town government, rather, I am looking at how we go about sharing of services with other towns. 

Wakefield and Melrose share a Health Department, Melrose does the work, and sends a bill to Wakefield, so one department does the work and the other town pays the agreed amount.  After three years if Wakefield doesn't like the results, they can go elsewhere.  What is important to recognize here is that duties are not split, but rather vested in one entity.

Some small towns in Massachusetts, including Rutland, are beginning to share police, where one town will provide backup to another contiguous town. 

Quabbin and North Middlesex now share a Superintendent of schools as of June, 2009.

Things are beginning to happen, and while it may seem glacial and slow moving, change is afoot.

Eugene O'Neill once wrote (abut Ireland) "There is no present or future, only the past happening over and over again" 

That observation, that sentiment has to stop or all of our swans are cooked.

Last edited by Dick Paulsen (2009-10-26 06:35:31)

Mr. Paulsen There is currently a debate going on under a thread on Wareham village soup. Your point of view I think is important to that discussion. If you could repost over there. Also if you would please consider going public with you point of view in the papers. This is information that need to be made public! Thank You!

awww ty...... this info seems to be a hot topic!!!

WW: Untangling Westfield...unabridged

VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN

Steve Decosta wrote:

A proposal to develop senior housing on a town-owned tract in West Wareham known as Westfield has been refiled by selectmen in exactly the same form as one that was turned down, 261 to 204, by voters at last fall's town meeting and will be on the warrant for the April 26 annual town meeting...

ST: Affordable housing for Wareham's seniors to voters again

VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN

Last edited by P-SPAN (2010-03-22 01:11:13)

Jaime Rebhan wrote:

The Finance Committee voted Wednesday to once again recommend that Town Meeting vote down the Westfield project...

WW: Finance Committee opposes Westfield project

VOTE4CHANGE
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
P-SPAN

Oh, no, Dick...the troll turned down $100,000.00 because he would feel as though he was being bought out by hate bloggers, etc.
Money is no object to him...since he has none and is a mooch.
By the way, Dick, check your e-mail!!!

After we defeat this proposal once again, we need to draft an article for Fall Town Meeting that rededicates the land by removing the vague "municipal purposes" language from the original 1977 Town Meeting article, and perpetually places the land under the same protections that the citizens of the 1977 Town Meeting thought they were voting for at the time. 

That would help to discourage any future attempts to involve us in this boondoggle.

P-SPAN wrote:

After (finally) trying to settle this at the upcoming TM, setting up a committee to try and determine a use for the property that's supported by TM voter's should be next..in my opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly with the notion of a Westfields Uses Advisory Committee being appointed next spring, following the April 2011 town election.  Until then, treading water on that - and several other issues - may prove to be wiser than plunging ahead into the unknown.