RE-ELECT TOM CREAMER - APRIL 9, 2012

PRINCIPLE, INTEGRITY, OBJECTIVITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, EQUITY

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Time for Action on Route 15

Monday, the Board of Selectmen (BOS) will again meet with stakeholders in the Route 15 area to discuss a solution to the wastewater challenges facing this section of our community. Currently, several property owners are under consent orders from the Department of Environmental Protection to upgrade their wastewater systems. One in particular - the Sturbridge Retirement Cooperative Corporation (SRCC)- home to hundreds of Sturbridge seniors, most of whom are on fixed incomes has long sought support from the Board of Selectmen in terms of a traditional sewer solution.

In fact, the meeting minutes of 21 June 2004 (page 3) reflect that a sewer line for Route 15 was approved on a 3-2 vote by the Board of Selectmen. Subsequently, after a year of dialogue and disagreement between SRCC and the BOS over (among other things) sewer privilege fees, the approval was rescinded on 20 June 2005 (page 8) by the Board after withdrawal by the petitioners. Discussions have intermittently manifested between the Route 15 stakeholders and the BOS since with the end result being the same, calls for more studies and little substantive action.

I have long been a proponent of a municipal solution to the challenge of sewer and water on Route 15. From a residential standpoint we are currently faced with a situation where hundreds of our residents within the Retirement Community are under a consent decree due to a dated and inadequate wastewater treatment system. These residents are turning to us for relief and I believe we have an obligation to help provide a municipal solution.

From and economic standpoint, one has to recognize that despite various experiments with zoning in the Route 15 corridor – the latest of which is the Special Use District and the Planned Unit Business Development which has existed for nearly 15 years - little interest has been generated in terms of viable economic development. This is disconcerting as Route 15 is ideally suited and located for the types of preferable high-tech industrial development that many rural communities clamor for.

The current zoning (pages 41-43) along Route 15 provides for an array of desirable development opportunities that are mindful of our need for a vibrant tax base, while protecting our rural charm. Zoning however is simply not enough and the lack of any real interest in that area would seem to bear this out. I believe that the number one impediment to improving our economic base in that area is the lack of municipal infrastructure. Indeed Dr. John Mullin, the preeminent expert in rural reindustrialization and economic development has long held that the “absence of water and sewer systems represent the greatest flaw “in trying to revitalize and reindustrialize rural communities. He goes on to say that “Without such services, it’s clear that a community will wait and wait and wait”.

Clearly, the current economic climate in non-conducive to development and/or expansion by sought after industries, but if we do not act now, we will continue to find ourselves unable to leverage opportunities which may present themselves in the future. This has certainly been the case for the last several decades. The current zoning along Route 15 with no modifications whatsoever, provide a great deal of opportunity for increasing our tax base, while protecting the character of our community.

One could surely argue that we as a community have waited long enough and in consideration of the escalating tax burden Sturbridge residents will soon be shouldering from projects such as a new elementary school, the upgraded Wastewater Treatment Facility, and even the Town Hall/Center School project, we can no longer continue to travel this course of inaction. To do so would be both derelict and detrimental. The solution to the challenges on Route 15 (both residential and commercial/industrial) is municipal infrastructure – be it traditional sewer or an on-site system. Certainly, the studies conducted by Tighe and Bond have indicated that the soils in the Route 15 corridor are ideal for a municipally owned and operated on-site system. The clock is ticking however and alternative approaches that address the challenges along Route 15 are becoming less tenable with each passing day.

To that end, we as a Board have failed to provide the leadership and the necessary sense of urgency in addressing this issue. Certainly, another year has nearly expired with little substantive engagement on this issue by those of us charged with the leadership role. Undoubtedly and needlessly, our attention has been redirected elsewhere and that has come at a high cost to our community. I believe that the Board has an obligation to lead from the front on this issue and move ahead with a realistic solution that addresses the challenges facing this important corridor within our community. We owe it to those residents shouldering the growing tax burden within Sturbridge. Standing idle and continuing to sit on our hands, is simply no longer an option.

17 comments:

  1. My prediction if a vote on the sewer is taken now,it will be 2 for and 3 against BUT MAYBE PERHAPS HOPEFULLY come April that vote might just be reversed, what a wonderful thought, things might actually start to happen here in the People's Republic of Sturbridge.
    ReplyDelete
  2. SEWER PRIVILEGE FEES? You've got to be kidding! If Route 15 does get a sewer line, should the Route 15 residents pay to install that line? Yes. Should they also pay a betterment fee? Perhaps, like the rest of us did. But why? If they pay to install the line, why should they also pay a betterment fee for something they've already bought? Okay, I expect there's a good explanation for that. BUT THEN: On top of that, some of our town leaders say that these folks should pay a huge "Privilege Fee." Why would anyone pay a privilege fee on top of paying to put in the lines, and paying betterment fees? Once, Twice, Three Times the fees?
    ReplyDelete
  3. The town paid almost $250,000 for a comprehensive wastewater management plan in that timeframe when, unfortunately, interested Route 15 folks were not interested anymore. It's unfortunate, because now, the town would have re-do at least one section of that plan to add the Route 15 corridor; so there's that additional cost. Plus residents are now being asked to pay $25,000 for a study to figure out how many millions it will cost to run a 2-mile sewer line down Route 15.

    I believe Route 15 folks should continue on their present course of action: on-site sewerage systems.

    Tom Creamer outlined the options very well; after listening to him, it seemed clear to me that on-site sewerage is the best course of action at this point in time.

    Also, for someone who needs the town's assistance, Mary Berry would do well to consider a calmer approach instead of pointing an accusatory finger at the town. Remember Mary, all residents live here and are part of "the town." You and others who live in the park are not an island. After watching that meeting, it was clear that the town was doing everything it could to assist at the time.
    ReplyDelete
  4. I watched the meeting, too. It's my impression that when Mary Berry decided not to do the earlier sewer thing "at the time" (to quote the previous poster), the seniors had been told that they would have to pay a PRIVILEGE FEE of over A MILLION DOLLARS. Who do you know who had to pay a privilege fee to hook up an EXISTING home to sewer? The mobile homes on Kelly road were existing "at the time." My understanding, from watching the Selectmens' meeting is that Ms. Berry asked why THEY would be required to pay a privilege fee. She wasn't arguing about privilege fees for new homes which may be built in the future.
    ReplyDelete
  5. Can anyone tell me why Hal White has to be so nasty to everyone? He starts the whole thing off being an antagonist and then of course Greg jumps right in with both feet being just as rude. I agree that they should pay their fare share, but nobody needs to be treated like that. Why would anyone bother coming before this body when they get treated like trash. Great job by Chairman Blanchard just sitting there and letting it go on. She belongs back in the bleachers.
    ReplyDelete
  6. Can anyone tell me why Hal White has to be so nasty to everyone? He starts the whole thing off being rude and nasty then of course Greg jumps right in with both feet being just as rude. I agree that they should pay their fare share, but nobody needs to be treated like that. Why would anyone bother coming before this body when they get treated like trash. Mary, great job sitting there and letting it go on. It took another member of the selectboard (TC) to put a stop to it.
    ReplyDelete
  7. In response to "No need said:" Right on! Good for you! It looked to me like Mary Berry went before the board prepared. Hal and Greg, not so much. I heard no logical reason why, way back when the sewer line deal didn't go through in the first place, Mary Berry had been asked to pay not only "her" share to install the line, plus the betterment assessment, but a privilege fee also - all three fees on existing homes. I may not be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I am certainly not the dimmest - and, no, I do not live on Rte. 15 or on Kelly Rd.. Can someone please explain why these folks were ever asked to pay a privilege fee in the first place????
    ReplyDelete
  8. Both the interim town administrator and Greg Morse will provide definitive, straightforward answers as to why both fees are necessary. But it was explained at the meeting and it made sense to me. I believe it has to do with there being 2,000 people in town that are sewered and for the park to buy into that, they must pay a privilege fee. As Greg explained it, for the last 40 years, whenever anyone tied into sewer, they had to pay both fees. The sewer system in Sturbridge is NOT a municipal-owned system; it is paid for by sewer users. Mary Berry and others may not like it; but that's how it is.

    I agree that White was testy and rude; prior to the meeting, the Selectboard had received an e-mail from Mary Berry that had what sounded like a rude and unnecessary remark in it (Mary Berry's seemingly standard statement: "the town has does nothing for us"); so that didn't exactly start the meeting on the right foot. Shame on both of them; as the meeting went on, White became calmer but Mary Berry did not. Being stubborn can be a blessing; but Mary, you read the zoning bylaw to town officials who know very well what it means.

    Thing is, while the park is an over-55 park, and I'm of the opinion that everyone would like to help, they have to take some responsibility for being in the situation their in, too. And why is it Mary Berry thinks anyone owes them something? No one owes anyone anything. My mother taught me that if you want something, ask nicely for it.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't know of anyone, with an existing home, when the sewer lines went in who had to pay 3 fees: one for their share putting in the lines, one as a betterment fee and a THIRD FEE called a privilege fee. I'm sure that one of the reasons the park is "in the situation they're in," is because they were told years ago that they would be required to pay a privilege fee over and above their cost of the line and betterment fees. The previous poster writes that we will be told why they must pay "both" fees. Both, to my mind means 2, not 3. Everyone seems to agree that the park will need to pay their own way. That doesn't seem to be the issue here. As far as rudeness, there has been plenty of it - but let's not forget who asked for the "privilege" of getting our votes.
    ReplyDelete
  10. I agree with the previous poster. The issue isn't about the retirement park paying their fair share, it's about them paying more than others have in the past. And I also agree that these people WE elect don't have carte blanche to treat taxpayers rudely.
    ReplyDelete
  11. It is about the park paying their own fees and everyone knows fees rarely, if ever, go down. They usually go up. Had the park continued involvement with the town in 2005, the cwmp may include Route 15 as a sewer area and that would have cleared one hurdle already; perhaps it would have cost less, too.

    There are two fees: betterment and privilege fees. Betterment fee is when the sewer line is already in front of the house. Privilege fee is when there is no sewer line there at all and new users want to buy in to the existing capacity (or is it reserve?)

    Have any of you conducted any internet searches on the subject? If not, you will find that both fees are typical in MA and elsewhere. I found this link which seems to address both fees but I haven't had time to read it through: http://data.yarmouth.ma.us/REPORTS/IWRPC/Phase_III_Website/Section%202-1%20Supplement.pdf

    I would like to hear more about White's comment re: forming a sewer (and perhaps including water) corporation that handles sewer in a town. Tom Creamer picked up on White's statement, and I would like to see the town admininstrator research such a strategy. That should be discussed in more detail unless White has info to bring to the table already.
    ReplyDelete
  12. Bankrupt in SturbridgeFeb 14, 2010 04:44 PM
    White won't be able to bring anything to the table but his contempt. We need infrastructure on route 15 period if we are going to be able to spur economic growth. Our taxes our going to skyrocket next year. We need to increase our tax base period.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Why does everyone think Route 15 is a goldmine? It's entirely possible that Route 15 is not a viable area for development.

    How about a feasibility study to see if it's worthwhile for residents to spend money there? There is no corporation or business in the world that spends millions of dollars without knowing what the return on that money will be so why should tax payers fork it over, with rhetoric and false claims on the word of amateurs? If such experts can provide evidence, then also include a marketing study, along with professionals to market it,and attract and work with those businesses.

    The way this is going right now is so amateurish. Give me something studied and supported by the experts that supports development there, and I'll be the first one in line voting for it.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Tom, can't CPA funds be used, in part, to help people stay in their homes? If they can, is there some way that the senior citizens at the mobile home park could get some assistance in getting sewer to their homes? Thanks
    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello, Tom,
    The TV transmission of this week's BOS meeting is horrible. It starts and stops and is very quirky. Is there any chance that you might have time to post the meeting on this page? Thanks a million.
    ReplyDelete
  16. CPA funds can be used on CPA purchased parcels.

    Funds can be used for open space conservation and recreation purchases, historical preservation and restoration, and affordable housing. The state of MA created guidelines for use of CPA funds.

    The website below outlines what are allowed uses, and includes a list of towns and their uses of CPA funds: http://www.communitypreservation.org/index.cfm

    The person asking the question above should talk with Charles Blanchard and other members of the Sturbridge Housing Parternship.
    ReplyDelete
  17. We all pay an extra 3% charge on our property taxes for CPA funds. Perhaps we should take a look at lowering that amount. Also, I think that we should have more questions on our private ballots, and fewer public votes at the Town Meetings. Town Meetings are much more difficult for some segments of the population to attend, because they are at night and require people to stay for long periods of time. Elderly citizens, for instance, many of whom can't even drive at night, certainly cannot be equally represented. And then there's a feeling in the air of same old problem like we had with S.O.S. - intimidation - and that surely was not always in public. Makes people uncomfortable to speak their minds...

    March 8, 2010 3:21 PM
    ReplyDelete