Finance Committee - Regular Meeting

Yep, we're going to go. Awesome. Well, it is 6:30 on October 8th. Um, we have a quorum of one, two, three, four, five finance committee members here. So, I will start the meeting with a roll call as we are fully remote this evening as everyone can tell. Uh, so I'll start with myself. Victoria is present. Present. Greg. Hi. Present. Heather. Heather present. And Angelina. Angelina present.

Excellent. Okay. Thank you all. Um, so tonight, thank you Amber for putting together our packet. We have one, now that we are called to order, we have one um item on the agenda and that is to consider the vote to approve the recommendations for the town meeting warrant articles. And Amber, thank you very very much for um putting all of these recommendations together. Did everyone have a chance to read through them? Yes. Yep.

Okay, great. And Evan sent us also um specifically for article 5, which was a little bit controversial. So, I think it's worth perhaps just at least discussing this this piece sent to us the um appraisal for those three parcels of land. They appraised it as one. Um and this means that the the purchase and sale for that parcel is uh can go through uh because it was appraised it over the agreement. Right. Correct. So um if I could just pivot off Dan Kusher is is here as well. Let me just note that. But yeah, sorry Anna. Thank you.

No, that's okay. Um so CPC is planning to meet next Thursday. That is when they are going to vote on whether or not to support the article and if so where the approp bucket of money the the funds will come from. Um so we won't have that again until after after Thursday. Um the other Nope, sorry I'm I was going to go on to a different article, but we can leave that that there. So what was the purchase and sale price? 450,000. Okay. So, we're 5,000 over, so we're good. Okay.

Samir is here as well. Welcome, Samir. How are you? Hey, Ron. How's it going? Well, thanks. Um, okay. And and one other piece to article 5 that I that I want to just discuss, they have appraised it as developable, but they said that they are not necessarily equipped or um sure about the flood plane issues they're they're in, right?

How do we how do we move forward with that with that piece? Right? I mean, there's a everyone has said that it's undevelopable. um but is being appraised as de developable. So does that mean that we're actually getting a fair shake on that price?

Um well, I think it entirely depends on how you view it. So, um you know, this appraiser that um we asked to look at the property feels that while it may not be likely, it is possible and that someone with the wherewithal or means could certainly develop that that parcel. Um, I've seen other appraisals that come back and say there's not a snowballs chance that this is going to be developed and therefore it is um build as undevelopable. But in this case, the appraiser thought that um that you know some of the land if you know maybe not all of it but some of it is developable. Um, the other thing I I just was thinking about on the on the ride here was um, you know, it the seller came up with the price of 450,000. Our appraiser came up with 455,000. I highly doubt that the seller came up with 450 without doing any due diligence on what the comps would be and how this would play out. So, I think that, you know, I think the argument of is is a developer or is it not? I will go back to what I had told the select board which is if you feel that this is valuable to the town as conservation land only both sides of the Blackstone uh part of the Blackstone Canal all of the you know other things that go along with it and you believe that that's worth 450,000 to the town then then I think this is something we move forward on. Um, and if not, then, you know, a no vote potentially puts us back to um renegotiation or they put it back out to sale and maybe we don't get another bite at the apple. Um, but we we don't know that until we go through the town meeting process. So,

you know, Evan, it's it's amazing. There's there's not a lot of developable land left. So, whatever is left is the is the lousy land. And I'm telling you right now, we had a couple of parcels where we didn't think it had any chance of getting developed and there are six six lots going into these to these areas. So if if if an appraiser looks at it and thinks it can be developed, it can be developed. So I think I think $450,000 is a great price for that property. I'm glad you guys negotiated that. I think it's a good deal for the town. Thank you. Do you need a motion from us, Victoria, to say we like it before Dan tries to talk us out of it? [laughter] I'm gonna How did you know?

How did Dan, I know you will.

Yeah, Dan, please have have your say. Um yeah, I uh that's a good point, Mark, that you know the um [clears throat] if an appraiser says it's developable, even though we look at it and think it, it doesn't look very attractive, if it's like one of the last few places left in town you can develop, then yeah, somebody might try to. Uh but I guess my concern then is uh I mean the appraiser said the whole entire thing is developable. Uh even though there's wetlands on it, all the the whole square footage is appraised as developable. uh even though it's you know mostly in the the flood zone and um it it doesn't that is uh like that's explicitly not taken into account in the appraisal. Um the I I want to just read off a few couple quotes from this appraisal that were very concerning to me. Uh it says the site does uh does appear to be encumbered by wetlands according to MAD wetlands mapping and GIS. It is unclear how much this would hinder the development potential of the subject property. The appraiser is not a wetlands expert and would recommend further analysis should the client deem necessary. And then another part of it, the subject property is indicated on flood insurance map number map number dated July 4th, 2011. As such, it appears that the subject property is located in zone AE. However, the appraiser is not qualified to detect such districts and urges a client to retain an expert in this field if desired. the it seems that the the flood zone and the

wetlands are completely ignored in the price that's set. Um like you you literally can't develop the the wetlands. Um so I I'm just really concerned about the about the reliability of this appraisal. Um but even if it can be developed uh in that case I would like this to be considered uh at least part of it uh for affordable housing. Um the fact that that has not uh been considered at any point uh and then we find out that the whole entire thing is appraised as developable is disappointing. Um, and I I think it uh it appears to show a disregard for uh affordable housing. Um, so I uh I'm interested to hear what uh CPC thinks for uh which uh category of money to uh put toward this if um if they even want to. Uh but yeah, I it just it feels like it's it's both developable and not developable and should be for conservation because we don't want them to build there and also we wouldn't build anything there because it's not developable. It just it feels like it's everything and nothing at once. Um yeah, just a lot of things. Thanks.

Thanks, Dan. Samir,

yeah, I mean that's where I'm sort of I was reading the report also and do we have the ability to go back and sort of pressure test developable versus not undevelopable because I think obviously the 455 versus 450 like okay great but if we are all assuming it's not developable I would think that that 455 will be a lot lower and when I mean a lot like could be like 100,000 or whatnot. So, I feel like I'm just I think the value would be lower if it was appraised as undevelopable land and maybe more so why was it written that way when almost going in we assumed it wasn't going to be developable. So, I also feel in the same sentiment that I feel like the price could be appraised at a lower value based on the assumption that we wouldn't be able to do much with it.

Thanks, Samir. um the the I think that's all valid and I too personally have um reservations. However, we as a committee did vote to approve and or recommend the passage of the article as as written and um the the motions and votes that will be taken this evening are to approve the the recommendations blurbs as as Amber has has written them. Um, so without a motion to reconsider, I I think that we've we're we're on record with our with our thoughts here. Um, Evan, you were going to move on to an additional article and enlighten us.

Yes. I just wanted to let the committee know that article 7 um, which is uh, to accept Harding Street as a public way and there was some kind of back and forth about whether it was a public way or wasn't. So, we did a a full title search on on that property. Um, and it is remaining about as clear as mud. It does not appear that anything was ever properly recorded. So, it is town council's recommendation that we move forward with our um current understanding of the meets and bounds and put back on the public record that this is uh you know, vote affirmatively that this is a public way and then record it properly uh in perpetuity. So,

so do we I can't remember what we did with that. You were waiting for more information. So, you're recommending that we go forward with that article or town council's recommending we go forward that article. Correct. So, then you have to take a position. So, I'd make a a motion that we support the passage of that article as written. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second to support uh the passage of article 7 as written. Let's take a a roll call vote. I'll start with myself. I say I Greg. Hi, Heather. Hi, Angelina. Hi, Mark. Hi, Dan. Hi, Zamir.

Hi. Sorry. Yeah, no worries. That motion passes unanimously. Thank you all. Um, were there any further thoughts on any of the other recommendations? is the way that the verbiage stands. I'd make a motion we support the recommendations as drafted. Do I have a second? Second. Perfect. I have a motion and a second to support the recommendations as written. Um, uh, any further discussion? Yeah, please correct.

Yeah. On article 10, it says article 10 will establish rules and regulations around protected use ADUs while bringing the town into compliance. I was as I read that I was thinking regulations around protected ADUs which are now allowed by right under state law while bringing the town into compliance with the new legislation. So emphasizing that if we do nothing then they are now allowed by right. But this is establishing the rules and regulations to something which is already allowed. Not allowing something new.

What? [snorts] I don't think I followed you. I I shall say it. Um, what are you suggesting that the recommendations state instead? Article 10 will establish rules and regulations around protected use ADUs, which are now allowed by right under state law, while bringing the town into compliance with the new legislation.

So, we want to add under state laws, I think, is what I'm taking. Uh, add which are now allowed by right under state law. Okay, got it. I'll accept that as part of my motion. A second. I'll accept that as part of my second. Um um sorry, just to be clear for um article 7, now that you guys are supporting it, I'll make that blurb match the other road acceptance. Perfect. Thank you. That's

I have put my amended description in chat for Thank you. Uh I see. I don't think I was hearing you clearly. Okay, that makes perfect sense to me. And Dan put it under his second. So great. Thank you. And thank you Amber for amending that. Any additional conversation, thoughts, discussion? Seeing none, let's vote for the motion. I say I Greg I Heather I Angelina I Mark I Dan I that motion passes unanimously.