Subject: Daigle questions fiscal rationale & logic of purchasing Louisburg Square |
Author: Roger L. Daigle via Duplicate Dawg [Edit]
|
Date Posted: 22:54 08/08/09 Sat
(DAWG NOTE: Roger L. Daigle is a co-host on the very popular local access cable TV show, “Inside Dracut Politics”, which can be viewed several times a week on Channel 8.)
It has always been a problem with me to read that only certain parties are playing games; playing politics; lies and innuendoes, when the real problem is the total lack of information, skewed information or downright false information.!!??
First lets start at the beginning -- The Town Charter states the Board of Selectmen is the policy making board - the Town Manager follows those policies but is directed as the one who runs the Town.
Second - considering this, why then without authority from the Charter, or even the other three selectmen, at an authorized posted meeting, two selectmen entered into private negotiations with an owner; the same applies to the two Dracut Housing Authority (DHA) members who did the same, supposedly as a sub-committee??????? Come on!! this total lack of attention to protocol troubles me, as it should you!!
These negotiations started, they say, in 2004. The general public wasn’t made aware of it till one read an article by our former Dracut reporter in an article published in the Sun on 4/25/06. A “standard” appraisal , they say, showed the building real value at $2,400,000. When I attempted to obtain a copy, I was told it couldn’t be released since the negotiations were still ongoing...
Then at the 6/5/06 Annual Town Meeting, Article 20 was presented. It requested $2,680,000 -- purpose was to acquire 38 units, for elderly housing.
Shortly thereafter, it was then that the two minority members of the DHA were apprised of this project - 2004 to 2006??? They questioned whether the other three had even walked through this building, and their answer was “no”!! I wonder when the other members of the board of selectmen were told??? They did agree to hire a “Consultant” to report back to them as to the condition of the building and the cost of bringing it up to snuff. His came in at $1.1 million, but he did state that he hadn’t been able to cover all units.
Another Consultant was hired with condition that the entire building be taken into consideration. His came in at $2.4 million. The third, an employee of the State’s Housing Authority came in at $2,772,000. However the big concern now is that the DHA, if they enter in this deal within the next 20 years, at anytime, find themselves in need of Capital Outlay moneys for unforeseen problems, were told it wouldn’t be available.
Too many people think like, if it’s a private sector deal a problems arise, raise the rent!! Not under Housing Authority rules and regulations. You can only charge 30 percent of an elderly tenant’s income, for their rent. Housing Authorities are a non profit organizations.
The present, private owner, has owned this building since l993 and from the deed, paid $960.000. The building is comprised of 24 studio apts,. which rent for $650 per month, and 14 one-bedroom units that rent for $750. The DHA for comparable units get $301 for studio apartments, and $353 for 1-bedroom units.
The annual cost for maintenance - wages; upkeep; sewerage; electricity; heat; water etc.; is estimated, from practical experience, at $171,000 per year. Add to that, their commitment to the Town of $70,000 per year, put the pencil to paper and considering there is no room for error, I can understand the DHA majority’s concerns, on a cushion for any possible need for Capital outlays. The current owner is not under any of those constraints.
The Town wants to bond, $2.7 million when the amount approved is $2,680,000??.. Our town treasurer was questioned as to what the current rate was and she said 4 percent. I phoned Palmer Dodge (I believe the largest bonding company in Boston) just a few days ago, was referred to Southwest Company. They after I told them the Town’s bond rating (obtained from Mr. Piendek) was A plus, I was told the current rate for a 20-year bond issue was between 4.5 – 5 percent.
Go to the Town’s Annual Report for ’08, you’ll find the Town has accumulated the sum of $659,000 in the CPA Fund for housing. Averaging approximately $65,000 a year from the housing’s 10 percent share of the CPA fund, collected from the 2 percent surcharge on our Real Estate tax, we, the Town, having joined in the CPA, in ’01, also receive an annual disbursement (not a reimbursement) from the DOR (Department of Revenue) each September.
The CPA was enacted into law December of 2000. The Town joined in Feb. of ’01. The DOR gets its money from an additional fee of $10 on all recorded documents at the Registrar Of Deeds offices. The first disbursement to the cities and towns in the program was made Sept. of ’02. At the beginning, where only a few towns and cities had opted to join, the disbursement averaged near 90 percent plus. However, since 2001, many more cities and towns have joined and with the current recession, fewer documents are being recorded, the DOR has told me the 2010 disbursement will be closer to 30 percent. If you know how bond repayments are figured, put it to paper. Add it all up, as I did, and you’ll come up with a shortfall of over $600,000. that the taxpayer will have to pick up over the next 20 years!!!
One must also consider the fact that if a good deal were to present itself in the next 20 years, the town couldn’t take advantage of it. Another thing, under private ownership we’re collecting near $18,000. In Real Estate taxes that we’ll lose if the Town takes that building over.
But, for me, the real kicker, is that no one has dared to mention is that this property is already elderly housing!!!! It’s true. The former owner, since this building was originally built for office spaces, went to the Planning Board for a “Special Permit” to convert these office spaces to residential units, and stating the converted residential units would be for the elderly only (over 60). After several hearings with the Planning and Board of Appeals, the Special Permit was granted and a Covenant was filed at the Registrar Of Deeds making it elderly housing for the next 50 years (31 more years). I have approximately 150 pages detailing this scenario, if anyone is interested.
Now with all of the above, why are two selectmen pushing this acquisition “for the elderly” when it’s already elderly housing???? Are you going to tell me that some members of the administration didn’t already know of this Covenant???
When someone in attendance at the DHA meeting mentioned, what about the Covenant, or words to that effect, the town counsel was heard telling Piendek, “Oh, Oh they found it???!!!”
The facts being known this is not a viable project for neither the DHA and the taxpayers of Dracut, and probably a worst project for the elderly. They deserve a lot better. Will the parties involved have the intestinal fortitude to drop this and work together on something that the whole Town will be proud of, not just a few???
| | Replies: |
- Go Get em' Mr.Daigle!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Our only tax fighter!!!!! (NT) -- Senier, 16:55 08/09/09 Sun
Obama is the best president in well over 100 yrs! (NT) -- vet and proud, 19:53 08/09/09 Sun
Also Dracut Selectman John Ziminnie!!!!!! (NT) -- Ol'couple, 19:55 08/09/09 Sun
You'l never read this in the Lowell(colorado)Sun (NT) -- Costello ths!, 19:57 08/09/09 Sun
Dracut resident defends purchase of Louisburg Square in a letter -- Duplicate Dawg, 07:54 08/12/09 Wed
- WOW -- JJ, 09:18 08/12/09 Wed
- Charge? -- Taxpayer, 17:46 08/12/09 Wed
- What happened to... -- Curious, 20:18 08/12/09 Wed
- WHY CAN'T THE TOWN LOOK FOR SOME OTHER PLACES TO BUY OR BUILD ON? (NT) -- QUESTION?, 00:44 08/14/09 Fri
Jeanne offers flippant response over on other website -- The reason her reputation is what it is, 00:20 08/17/09 Mon
|
|