The real story behind the April 1 Referendum Vote

Here is a summary of our politicians’ garage proposal: Give away a public parking lot and then pay the new corporate owner for the right to park on that same land.

Wakefield is a wonderful town, but this proposal just doesn’t add up. Our town officials are responsible for getting all of us the best services possible at the best possible price. With the parking garage proposal, they are unfortunately getting us a bad deal for the town. We deserve to determine our priorities and have our limited resources managed conservatively. Giving away our existing, functional public parking lot for free AND giving a $2.1 million tax break AND paying an additional $500,000 in maintenance, fees, and capital over the first 20 years to a private company for the right to park on that same land just doesn’t make sense. Our tax dollars and public resources have much better uses than adding and trying to maintain a few additional parking spaces to one side of downtown. (Source: Purchase and Sale agreement dated 1/27/14, including available incorporated documents).

Our schools need technology, textbooks, and teachers now. Our children, adults, and seniors need resources. The Department of Public Works needs money for maintenance and improvements including roadways, sidewalks, and snow plowing. With a NO vote, significant additional property tax revenue from Brightview will be available. With a Yes vote and the schedule as proposed, Brightview will get a negative net tax bill in 2016 resulting in the company receiving a significant check from Town Hall for tens of thousands of dollars.

Town officials attempt to sell this project as always cash positive to the town. Their scenario is extremely unlikely and their foundation is full valuation with full occupancy of the facility on January 1, 2016. Brightview properties are legally assessed at greatly reduced rates when they are not at full occupancy. While the business plans of this successful corporation are not public, this facility will certainly have a “ramp up” period of several years to full occupancy (this is based upon the statements by their own management team). During this ramp up, the reduced assessments will almost certainly result in the company having real estate tax bills lower than the payments due from the town. For example, using Brightview’s nearby North Andover and Arlington 2014 property assessments, which are similarly sized, new facilities of 137 and 90 units respectively, similar realistic assessments in 2016 would have resulted in our Town having to pay Brightview cash of about $50,000 and they would have a net property tax bill of $0 while we each still have to pay more than our fair share in taxes.

This would result in a net loss for the town of about $120,000 in one year from either the current situation or the smaller proposed Brightview facility with partial occupancy. This budget shortfall will require us to reduce our school and municipal budgets while experiencing increased needs for services required by our new senior neighbors. With a “No” vote, the first year and every year will yield a positive cash flow for the town, consistent with sound fiscal responsibility.

I recommend others also vote “No”.  Our town will still partner with Brightview to develop the necessary infrastructure betterments the company requires, at their own expense. The company can build a high quality assisted living facility on private land which they are rightfully purchasing. Our tax dollars are much more appropriate supporting public works, education, and town services rather than subsidizing Brightview.

Finally, to have our public tax dollars pay for the maintenance and insurance on the garage, explicitly including the spaces reserved for use by two town banks, is an inappropriate use of our tax dollars. This requirement from Brightview  is in the RFP Response and in their agreement with the Selectmen.

With the additional immediate revenue realized from a “No” vote, perhaps we can even put up pleasing directional “P” parking signs and improve our existing town municipal parking lots so people know where they can park as they patronize our downtown businesses. Let’s work together to solve bigger problems.

Our children and our neighbors thank you for joining me in supporting our town’s fiscal responsibility with a “NO” vote on the ballot initiative on April 1.

Respectfully,

Daniel Lieber