Regarding the police station and school building:

Excellent analysis and thoughts IMHO ...

"The Town Manager included the 2008 override in his 5.3% average tax increase assumption; Fincom excludes the override because the override is not a typical tax increase."

1) What 2008 override? Do you mean 2007? 2) Why wouldn't the override be considered a typical tax increase?

Regarding article 27:

"As currently written, this article could severely jeopardize the Town’s ability to expand commercial development on Route 125."

Please expand on how this might be so?

Thanks and Best wishes,
ahbgone

In response to your questions:

The override was passed in June of 2007, but for FY2008 and beyond. With regard to making the annual tax increase assumption for the next five years, the Town Manager averaged the percentage tax increases from 2002 through 2008. By including the override - which was an anomaly during those years, it skews the numbers. The fincom approach was to lower the town manager's tax increase assumption. In NAU's opinion, this is a reasonable approach - new growth is stagnant, we do not expect to see much growth in tax revenues. Furthermore, for the FY09 budget, the BOS and Fincom used a factor of 3.72% [even after taking into account the inclusion of the override proceeds]. I personally don't think it makes much sense to use the Town Manager's factor of 5.30 for the next five years...

As for the impact of the eminent domain article on future commercial development at the upper end of Route 125, much of the development hinges on the sewer rights. Our town is currently negotiating that issue with Osgood Landing - do we want to negatively affect those negotiations? I've heard both the fincom and BOS now ask Ted to revise the language - I'm hopeful that Ted will come back with amending language satisfactory to Town Counsel, to eliminate lingering concerns.

Sincerely,
Sandy Gleed

Thanks for the response.

Thanks for the clarification on the tax revenue estimates.

Regarding Osgood Landing - If the sewer rights issue (whatever it might be) involves taking someone's property against their will for a private development, I'm all for jeopardizing the project. If it doesn't, ... I find it hard to believe that the wording of the warrant is problematic.

Best wishes,
ahbgone

Thanks for the clarification regarding the budget.

I'm going to tend to go with what the legal council for the town advocates for 'eminent domain'. I am strongly against the taking of private land by the government... but I am also against 'short sighted' changes to laws without very careful consideration of long term impacts. It can be very easy to hamstring ourselves into a situation if we are not careful. So I will be very interested in the feedback from the town council.

My uneducated impression is I'm not sure what Ted Tripp's agenda/purpose is for this. I'm wary.

My understanding regarding the Osgood Landing situation may be around the fact that there are some questions about needing to lay some sewer/water pipes through some properties. If permission was denied this policy is a tool to accomplish this. For the good of the town (i.e. we are very strapped for revenue and need to provide the infrastructure for expansion) I would be open to allowing a due diligence process to exist to lay pipes from 'point a to point b' providing an individual was compensated for any inconvenience of temporary construction.

So you only support the idea of property rights as long as it's convenient?

I didn't say that. I believe in personal property rights... but I also believe that the concept of 'eminent domain' exists for a valid reason. My point is that we need to be very careful when changing laws without considering impacts in the longer term. What seems very 'obvious' now may have unanticipated impacts later that could be very costly.

I think Tripp's Article focuses on limiting the use of eminent domain as per the Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) decision by the US Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision the Court upheld New London's ability to use eminent domain power to seize property (land and house) from a private party and give the property to another private party. The rationale was that 'public use' was served (and eminent domain use justified) since the new use of the land, as part of a larger 'redevelopment' plan, would generate much more tax revenue for the city.

An hypothetical example for North Andover might be the town's ability to seize a private plot on Route 114 or Route 125 and then give it to a private developer would could then combine the lot with others purchased from willing sellers to make a large enough plot to build a new shopping center. The town would benefit from the higher tax revenues from the shopping center versus residences.

The traditional understanding of eminent domain allowed seizure of private lands for 'public use' like building a road, school, other public infrastructure. (This is also the ability to force private owners like Osgood Landing to convey easements across their property for items like sewer pipes. Owners must be compensated fairly but can not ultimately refuse.)