HULL FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 (Revised)
FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Domenico Sestito (Selectman), Chair - absent
Dennis Blackall (Selectman), Vice Chair
Roger Atherton, (Citizen-at-large), Clerk
Richard Kenney (Advisory Board) - absent
Brian McCarthy (Citizen-at-large, Council on Aging)
Stephanie Peters (School Committee) - absent
Kevin Richardson (School Committee) - absent
Charles Ryder (Advisory Board, alternate)
John Silva (Citizen-at-large, former Selectman)
STAFF MEMBERS
Marcia Bohinc (Town Accountant)
Philip Lemnios (Town Manager)
Kathleen Tyrell (Superintendent of Schools)
MINUTES
Mr. Blackall called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. He distributed the Agenda. He reported that the meeting was being
recorded with audio and video by the Town and by Dr. Atherton for the Minutes. Motion to approve the Minutes of
8/20/2010 by Mr. Blackall, seconded by Dr. Silva, vote: unanimous in favor. He suggested to Dr. Atherton that in the future
he should send a reminder with the Minutes shortly before each meeting in the future, so they would be fresh in minds of the
attendees.
Mr. McCarthy reported that the Real Estate Sub-Committee (S/C) had met the previous day, and re-discussed those five
properties that have the most potential for sales revenue to the Town. The one property of those with buildable lots that can
be sold by the Town without having to go through Town Meeting, and closest to being ready for sale, is on Mountford. The
question for the BoS at their meeting tonight is what process for disposal will the BoS choose? The S/C has decided its next
order of business will be the many small non-buildable lots that will be of primary interest to abutters. Weymouth has done
something very similar and Mr. Lampke is researching the process and procedures that they used. Although the other four
buildable lots are still under consideration and they will continue to be worked on, they will come forward to the FPC only
when the S/C is able to make a recommendation. Mr. Lemnios added that the FPC had recommended to the BoS that
properties taken by tax title be disposed of quickly without sending to Town Meeting for expediency of obtaining revenue.
In response to questions he added that minimum bid prices could be attached, that he would get appraised values for bidding
purposes when the appraised value would likely be more than the assessed value, but only if the cost of the appraisal could be
recouped in the sale.
Mr. Lemnios further explained for those properties that have to go to Town Meeting, there are two basic kinds – those bought
for a specific purpose which is no longer valid or feasible, and those acquired through the original land grant. There are
additional steps beyond Town Meeting for some properties, like Conservation Land that needs 2/3 vote of the Legislature and
school properties that need approval of the School Committee. He continues that the original list of Town-owned property
was narrowed to 65 parcels, which was further reduced to buildable lots with high value, without encumbrances that would
make sale difficult, and the result was 1 lot on Mountford that appear to be dividable into 3 buildable lots, 3 parcels on
Nantasket Avenue and Spring Street that could be 2 or 3 buildable lots, and 1 large lot on Farina that the Assessor’s records
has as 26,000 sq ft and now appears to be only 6,000 sq ft through redemption or having been acquired by DRC. Only
Mountford can be quickly disposed, so that is the catalyst for the BoS to decide what process of disposition to use for
properties that are not legally required to go before Town Meeting. Mr. Blackall asked if the FPC could get a list of all the
properties taken by tax title, with a date of acquisition, and the status of ownership? Mr. Lemnios agreed and added that even
if acquired by the Town, people actually have up to year after being taken by the Town to redeem the property by paying the
taxes.
Mr. McCarthy stated there is a lot of property behind the “green building” and the BoS might want to talk about that. Mr.
Blackall stated there are a lot of complexities involved – a lot of small lots, sewerage issues, marsh land – and it is probably
best discussed on a future agenda as it’s a big topic and we would want to give people a chance to come in and voice their
opinions. Mr. Finn asked if the BoS will consider a move towards small lots, which will easier to sell, maybe not so many
dollars, but will help people make their lots more conforming. Mr. Blackall suggested that question be brought to the BoS
who have the authority and responsibility to make those determinations.
Mr. Lemnios described the progress of the Town Fees S/C. Data is still being collected, but he reports from most of the
Town Departments that have fees and he distributed several spread sheets containing those data. He indicated that Police and
Fire have not been completed, but soon will be. Mr. Blackall commented he would like to see pro forma statements, showing
what we collect each year and what we think we should be. Mr. Lemnios said he could get that data for the last three years.
He added there are several fees under discussion, for example occupancy fees which do not cover our actual costs. There are
many fees connected to many projects – occupancy fees, building department inspections and fees, zoning board fees, health
departments fees, and what we lack is the administrative piece to bring these all together in one place so an inspector can
easily determine what has gone on, what is pending, and what is relevant to future inspections. We need to establish that and
have it paid for by the fees, so it isn’t an additional burden to the taxpayers.
Mr. Ryder commented that he thinks this committee is a “hinderence to the normal functioning of government. Our
government is the BoS set policy and goals and the Town Manager executes those goals, makes suggestions, and facilitates
implementation. All we’re doing is delaying that process. When he was appointed to this committee he went to Mr.
Lemnios’ office and asked for the information on the fees and he had all the information right there in his office, and it’s been
six months since we set up this committee. This should have been done a long time ago. As soon as the BoS made the
decision to examine the fees and determine whether it is costing the Town money to have a low fee structure. Phil could
present this and within two Selectmens’ meetings to get public dialog, make a decision and do it. He suggested we are sort of
a matrix management committee.” Mr. Blackall stated “he couldn’t agree more and he’d been thinking the same about the
Real Estate S/C. It is not something he was inclined to do in this meeting, since he is only acting as Chair, but this should be
taken up by the official Chair.” (Clerk’s Note: Rather than trying to summarize these comments, I have tried to reproduce
their verbatim remarks in quotations, as I did not want to distort them in any way.)
Mr. Lemnios then reviewed the budget schedule, which will be out soon. He plans to start in October with estimates of what
is needed for a budget. He opined that the critical issues for the FPC are the scenarios to be discussed and the years to be
forecasted. His opinion is that the scenarios used last year have not changed dramatically. The real challenge for 2011 is
how are we going to address this? He intends to go to the BoS to verify a set of assumptions as to the revenues and
expenditures. Mr. Blackall stated the FPC or the Selectmen or both are going to have to provide some measure of direction,
structure, and concepts that are to be applied. He recalled that fiscal 12 had a projected deficit of $1.2 million and FY 13 had
a deficit of $1.9 million. The gap is widening each year, and if we look at FY 12, 13, and 14 as the projection, there will be a
still broader gap. He suggested we consider averaging the three years and make one reduction for the period rather than
making three different reductions in each of the three years. Mr. Lemnios commented that this would be difficult to
accomplish because the State does not allow three-year budgets. Mr. Blackall stated this is all fairly esoteric, but we could
spend less in the first year (to help cover the increased expenses of subsequent years), which the State does allow us to do.
Mr. O’Neil brought up the fact that lots of traffic and hauling going on through Hull, couldn’t we charge a fee for that? Mr.
Lemnios explained buildings are being torn down over on Paddocks Island, but there would be a lot of debris, and even some
asbestos, and a lot of dust and he didn’t think it would be worth it under any circumstances. Mr. Blackall indicated he would
prefer that not be trucked through Hull, but sent by barge someplace else. Mr. Finn stated that he is disappointed that
municipal parking fees only go to the police – the fees seemed low and should be increased and the increase should go to
maintaining our roads. Mr. Lemnios said you would have to go to the State Legislature to do that, but the BoS could impose
additional parking fees, which the Parking Study Committee that will study those kind of issues. He added we could require
that every car in Town have a sticker and charge x dollars which can only be spent on parking related issues – parking
enforcement, maintaining meters, lining roadways and crosswalks, but that is a broader discussion for another time.
Mr. O’Neil complained that the basic problem in the Town’ s roadway comes from contractors cutting into the roadway and
patching very poorly. He suggested the Town impose heavy fees to make sure repairs are done properly. Mr. Lemnios
responded that there are State imposed rules for what the Town can charge for street cuts. It is usually the gas company
utilities that are the biggest culprits. Public Works departments all over the State have the same problem. He claimed that
our PW Dept head – Joe Stigliani – has been very active in getting them to do a better job. Mr. Lemnios has received several
complaints from National Grid that Joe has been too aggressive in enforcing the rules; and he supports the high standards that
Joe is holding them to.
Mr. McCarthy asked to return to the earlier comments made by Mr. Ryder and supported by Mr. Blackall. He wanted to
thank Dr. Atherton for the work done on the fees. He believes that what we have done is not a hinderance at all. If the S/C
weren’t here, these issues wouldn’t get discussed. In his opinion, the BoS is reactive to issues instead of being pro-active to
issues. When he first saw all these data, he was very impressed and thought this is great. To hear people call it a hinderance
and people laugh about it is very disheartening. To come out here, work hard, and try to get all this information together and
give it to you, then the BoS can decide. But the data are not being collected by the sub-committees, they are being collected
by the Town, and analyzed by the S/Cs. Dr. Silva added that he is concerned about whose on the Fee S/C – there has not
even been a meeting as yet, and no one knows who the chair is. He would like to see the BoS and the Town Manager call a
meeting, so we can get started. He added that he believes Charlie Ryder, Kevin Richardson, Roger Atherton, and himself are
on it, but no one knows for sure. He made a motion – when the Town Manager (TM) has all the relevant figures together on
the fees charged in Hull and comparable ones at other towns, that the TM initiate a meeting of the Fee S/C so it could take
some action similar to the Real Estate S/C. Mr. Blackall added to the motion that a chair be elected to provide leadership and
Mr. McCarthy seconded. Vote: all in favor – unanimous.
Mr. Blackall called on Mr. O’Neil who once again brought up the subject of the Bluff Avenue property. He is concerned that
this property behind his house will be sold. He stated that it is a neighborhood play area and that at least one wedding a year
is held there. He plans to collect signed petitions to bring to the FPC. Mr. McCarthy pointed out once again that the S/C has
never discussed that property since when it learned there is a steep slope and as a result wasn’t seen as a buildable lot. The
S/C has never considered making a recommendation to sell that property. Mr. Blackall stated it will get the same
consideration as any other property on that list when and if the S/C decides to recommend selling it. He suggested that the
time to bring in petitions and discuss this is when and if it ever comes to the BoS, depending on what happens with the
process definition later tonight (at the BoS meeting). The point is that a petition shouldn’t influence what the S/C passes up
to the BoS. That would not make it a fair process for all those other parcels. Mr. Lemnios indicate that as Mr. McCarthy and
Dr. Atherton have said several times, that property was one of 65 properties identified as those that should be looked at for
disposition. The lot Mr. O’Neil is so concerned about is a large lot, with a high assessed value, and appeared to be buildable.
That is when Mr. O’Neil started coming to these meetings saying there are other attributes to this lot that need to be taken
into consideration. At that point the S/C put that lot aside along with a whole series of others because they had various
complications that would make recognizing substantial revenues less likely, and were put aside and that is where it stands
now.
The next meeting will be October 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM. Motion to adjourn by Mr. McCarthy, seconded by Dr. Atherton, vote
unanimous in favor. Meeting ended at 7:11 P.M.
Respectfully submitted: Dr. Roger Atherton, Clerk
| 
