Repairs approved at marathon meeting

By Ruth Lyon
Turley Publications Reporter

BRIMFIELD -It took five hours to do it, but less than 200 of the town’s 2,597 voters plodded through a 44 article annual town meeting, fighting all of the way.
“The town has had a tough year. There has been reduction in state aid, and a decline in revenues. Our budget is balanced, but barely. We still have money in the bank, though not as much as we’d like,” said Finance Committee Chairman Norman Silverman. He also touched on the town’s good credit, little debt and the fact the capital plan has been minimally funded for the last two years.
Select board Chairwoman Diane Panaccione commented her board hoped for a three percent raise for all employees.
Moderator Michael Miller said he would entertain no motions for specific requests to change the percentage (for individual employees).
Eventually, despite questions regarding the compensation for school teachers versus town employees, raises in the amount of two percent were voted.
By midnight, stalwarts remaining in the elementary school auditorium had approved a $7,736,676 budget, including a much-debated expenditure of $110,000 to retain the services of an architect and general contractor to repair town hall. The article required a two-thirds vote, as the funds would be borrowed.
The building, according to finance committee and select board members, has been closed since March, 2009 due to structural failure rendering the building unsafe. The business of the town has been, since then, conducted in the town hall annex next door to the Main Street structure; the police department shares quarters with the fire department.
Selectman Stephen Fleshman, discussing the proposed repairs, said the scope of repairs would be limited to replacing a damaged truss, posts and beams - structurally necessary repairs.
“We did tear out walls and ceilings to determine the extent of the damage; those will not be repaired at this time. We plan only to bring the building to such condition that it can be safely occupied,” he said. The town’s insurance company has listed the building’s current value at $290,000, down from over $1 million, he said. Fleshman further explained that, according to state Architectural Access Board statute, if the town undertakes repairs amounting to more than one-third of the building’s value, the building must then be made fully compliant with all access codes. “Once the value rises, we will be able to consider further repair or restoration,” he said.
Discussion by voters questioned whether the action would lead to a “money pit” situation, and whether the building should be saved.
Town clerk Pamela Beall said the building’s current unoccupied status is a cost to the town, as accommodation elsewhere is an expense, along with the expense of heating and minimal maintenance of an unoccupied structure.
“We have a building, we need to put it back in order certainly, but the first step is to save it structurally,” she said.
Also provoking lengthy discussion was the so-called Massachusetts Community Preservation Act article, upon which the finance committee had offered a “take no action” motion. The article seeking to accept sections 3-7 of chapter 44B of the general laws, would approve a surcharge on real property to permit acquisition and preservation of land for a variety of uses, including preservation, rehabilitation and restoration of historic resources. Funding would be provided by a one percent surcharge on real property, with exemptions to $100,000 of property valuation and to those qualifying for low-income housing.
To those warning that adoption of the measure would attract low-income residents, town counsel Jonathan Silverstein remarked that, according to statute, if a town does not provide for a certain percentage of low-income housing, a developer, under state statute 40B, can override local zoning provisions and construct a large development of such housing. Brimfield might be susceptible to that concern, he remarked.
Some voters cited the positive aspects of the measure, saying the town could gain revenue and residents could benefit from assistance with under- par properties. Others commented that this measure had appeared on a previous warrant, defeated by one vote, some observing that “a defeat is a defeat,” others arguing that if positive action was taken at town meeting, the surcharge question must then be subject to ballot vote.
Finally, the finance committee’s “no action” motion was approved, precluding further ballot action.
The committee’s article to petition the court for the establishment of a flea market revolving fund elicited lengthy discussion. This fund, with a cap of five percent of the tax levy, would, explained finance committee chairman Norman Silverman, allow the town to use the funds in anticipation of monies from flea market vendors.
Due to the timing of the world-famous markets, receipts from the May events may not be received in time to be applied to fiscal budgets ending on June 30. Thus, each year, the town votes to take anticipated revenues from other accounts, then replace those funds in the following fiscal year. The revolving account would preclude this annual “the flea market check is in the mail” occurrence, Silverman explained. The measure was finally approved, but elicited long discussion of the value-versus-expense of, in the words of one voter, “the magical mystery flea markets.”