2024-02-29-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2/29/2024 AC Minutes 6 Article 19 Establish, Amend, Dissolve and Appropriate To and From Specified Stabilization Funds Ms. Kosnoff stated that the only action under Article 19 Stabilization Funds would be to appropri- ate $4,036,373 into the Capital Stabilization Fund. The Committee voted 8-0 to recommend ap- proval of Article 19. Article 33 Authorize the Select Board to Seek Affordable Housing Mr. Bartenstein proposed that the Select Board modify their motion on Article 33 to include a time limit on the requested authorization such that it would expire at the end of 2025. A future town meeting could extend the time limit. He further proposed that the motion also include a non-binding resolution that outlines the expectations for any development that results from this authorization. Mr. Bartenstein suggested that the Committee’s report on this article should identify general catego- ries such as school enrollment, police and fire services, and the like. Mr. Bartenstein stated that he is not opposed to the project, but he objects to giving the Select Board “carte blanche”. Mr. Parker noted that Mark Sandeen was at the previous meeting of the Committee where he stated that the Select Board would be modifying their motion to specify an all-affordable development. Mr. Sandeen had hoped to have the Select Board engage in a public discussion on any guidance that should be included in the RFP, but it was unclear when such a discussion would occur. Mr. Osborne stated that he discussed the article with housing advocates and Select Board members, and that his understanding was that any time limit would dissuade developers from responding to the RFP. He believes 40B developers already face major difficulties getting through the permitting process, and they would not respond to a process that requires them to make major financial com- mitments on a deadline. Mr. Osborne noted that the actual costs to the Town had been covered in previous discussions, and that the School Enrollment Working Group established reasonable expectations of at most one new student per housing unit, distributed across multiple grade levels. Mr. Bartenstein disagreed that the Committee has enough information to a detailed evaluation. Mr. Padaki supported Mr. Bartenstein’s view that he would like to see a better definition of the project. Mr. Parker stated that he was having difficulty deciding how to report on this request to town meet- ing. He feels strongly that we do, in fact, have enough information about the kind of development that would result, and the analysis from the School Enrollment Working Group (EWG) derived its results in response to previous failed enrollment predictions from large developments. Mr. Bartenstein disagreed with Mr. Parker’s assertions and noted that the enrollment projections for Avalon Bay had significantly underestimated the enrollment impact. Mr. Parker suggested that the report should cover some of the points raised during the committee’s discussions, but without a formal vote. Mr. Padaki suggested that the report might be limited to a summary of information that the Committee needs before it can make a recommendation. Mr. Parker commented that concerns regarding school enrollment don’t come up when developers build new market-rate units “by right”. Mr. Bartenstein replied that those homeowners would be paying taxes, implying that an all-affordable development would not. Mr. Parker stated that the ex- pectation was that the all-affordable development would make regular property tax payments, or payments in lieu of taxes. Mr. Bartenstein questioned that assumption. Mr. Levine suggested that a negative recommendation would send a message to the Select Board that they need to provide more information to the Committee and to town meeting. He suggested