News
Citizens
plead with Council
Pleas fall on deaf ears
By Elizabeth Prata
Gray-The natives spoke for three hours Tuesday night
at the regular Council meeting, and if their comments
are any indication, they are restless.
At their last Council meeting on April 5, the Council
had approved extending by one year the Manager's contract.
It was due for renewal in 2006 but the 4-1 action
(with Councilor Gary Foster opposed) approved the
contract's extension to 2007.
Another item of business at the last meeting was to
vote to send pieces of the revised zoning draft to
the Planning Board for a public hearing. Mr. Foster
was opposed as well, saying that the draft was fraught
with errors, incomplete, and vigorously opposed by
the citizenry. Councilor Matthew Sturgis also expressed
dismay with the zoning draft as formulated but in
the end voted to send it along to the Planning Board.
The Public Hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. on April
28, in Stimson Hall.
The Council Rules allow for any member who voted in
the majority on any issue to raise the issue again
at the next consecutive Council meeting. Mr. Foster
read a statement (see sidebar) and asked a member
of the majority to move for a reconsideration on both
of the above issues. With Chair Pam Wilkinson absent,
Vice-Chair Lynn Olson led the meeting. She said that
the Manager's contract was an item that was duly discussed
in executive session which Mr. Foster was in on, and
then voted on at last meeting. "It's done, case
closed," Ms. Olson stated. Mr. Sturgis and Mr.
Hall were silent on the issue.
Mr. Foster replied that he was present at the executive
sessions at which the Council completed the performance
evaluation of the Manager. However, he said, the issue
regarding the contract was raised by the Manager at
the last few minutes of the last executive session
and "I was not prepared to discuss it then."
Mr. Foster felt that the issue surrounding the extension
of the contract was not fully discussed and voted
on in haste.
Mr. Foster said in an interview after the meeting
that since the contract was in place until 2006 so
he did not anticipate that it would be discussed during
an executive session that was advertised to be on
the topic of the performance evaluation. The notice
to the public stated: "Executive Session per
1 M.R.S.A. § 405 (6.A.) Discussion or consideration…….evaluation
of an employee….Specifically to conduct the performance
evaluation of the Town Manager."
State law says that "Matters not contained in
motion prohibited. No other matters may be considered
in that particular executive session." Mr. Foster
was unprepared to discuss a different matter, namely,
the contract extension.
Ms. Olson would not allow any further discussion regarding
the Manager contract issue. Of the Zoning Draft, she
said that the Zoning draft is just that, a draft.
"It's going forward and it's gone. Any other
business?" She asked her fellow members.
Ms. Olson's dictatorial attitude drew gasps and ire
from the audience, expressed in mutters and comments
from their seats.
In other business, Northbrook Business park owners
Ron Marcotte and Walter Hebold had asked the Community
Economic Development Committee (CEDC) to review their
request to extend the Tax Increment Financing District
(TIF) guidelines ten years to a total of thirty years.
They also had stated to the CEDC that the Bypass construction
design would negatively impact their business park
with the loss of one lot and a necessity to move the
entrance drive at cosiderable expense. Construction
is due to begin on the Bypass this spring. A TIF is
a method of sheltering development value from the
state funding formula by valuing a defined area, freezing
that value, and sheltering any increased value from
the State's eyes when it comes to determining the
state education sharing formulas. The extra value
stays local, but must be applied to projects within
the defined district.
CEDC Chair Mike Alt told the Council that the development
benefits both the Town and the Developer. He said
it supports continued growth of the District and allows
for a healthy tax shift. It also supports the voters
who, in 1997, initially approved the establishment
of the TIF district.
Gray resident Jim Monroe disagreed. He said that if
the Department of Transportation (DOT) impacts the
land owners that there would be adequate compensation
to the aggrieved parties. He challenged the perception
that the owners would have to bear an unreasonable
burden in absorbing the driveway costs.
The developers were invited to respond, but they declined.
Mike Salvetti of Gray said that the DOT compensates
property owners for takings. If the owners do not
accept the DOT's offer then there are two methods
in place to recover what they might feel are just
compensations- the State Claims Board and then Superior
Court. "There is already a clear process to get
more money from the State to satisfy their issue.
It is that process they should go through rather than
turn to the taxpayers of Gray."
Mr. Monroe approached the microphone to speak again
but Ms. Olson did not allow Mr. Monroe to speak a
second time.
Mr. Sturgis said that he had not heard any compelling
arguments for the TIF amendment. Mr. Foster also said
that he did not see any benefit to citizens outside
the district.
Ms. Olson reminded Mr. Foster that the benefit to
all citizens is that the increased value is sheltered
from the state and therefore increases the likelihood
that Gray would receive State increased subsidies.
She also said that if the Council denies the motion
that it denies the opportunity for citizens to decide
for themselves at Town meeting.
The motion to put the TIF amendment on the town meeting
warrant failed, 1-3, with Foster, Hall and Sturgis
opposed and Olson voting in favor.
Text
of Mr. Foster's statement on the motion to reconsider:
Since the previous Council meeting on April 5, I have
received several comments and concerns from citizens
regarding Council's actions at that meeting, and specifically
two Orders that the Council approved.
Some concerns were in reference to the proposed zoning
changes, others regarding the Town Manager contract,
and many addressed both issues.
A common concern questioned the urgency with which
the Council proceeded with these items, and in both
cases their questions were not adequately addressed.
There were many issues raised, both from Council and
citizens concerning the zone change proposal. Much
of the concern addressed errors, inconsistencies,
and incomplete drafts. The prevailing message from
those who spoke was that the proposal contained numerous
flaws and was ill-prepared, in its present condition,
to be forwarded for review.
A response from Council suggested that due to the
fact that the Council had been working on this issue
for eighteen months, it is now time to move forward
with the proposals, and amend the documents after
they have been adopted. In my opinion this is a very
poor reason to knowingly implement a flawed ordinance.
I doubt any of us here, for example, would purchase
a new vehicle with obvious defects, based on the salesman's
assurance that he will correct the defects after the
transaction is finalized. Yet this is what the Council
is requesting of the citizens of Gray.
Nonetheless, the Council ignored the citizen and Mr.
Foster's concerns and approved the proposal to be
forwarded for review.
Many citizens also expressed concerns regarding the
extension of the Town Manager's contract. Some citizens,
including me, expressed concerns over various provisions
in the contract, and many questioned the sense of
urgency surrounding this action.
Again, ignoring concerns and leaving questions unanswered,
the Council went forward and approved the amendment.
The sense of urgency alone surrounding these two issues
makes one sit up and take notice, but to move in haste
with a sense of urgency where there clearly is no
need, is cause for concern. Thomas Paine said it best
when he made the observation that "Immediate
necessity makes many things convenient, which if continued
would grow into oppressions. Expedience and right
are different things."
We, as elected members of the Town Council, have been
entrusted with conducting the Town's business on behalf
of the people of our community. To disregard the concerns
of those who have spoken and push forward on these
issues is not serving in the best interest of Gray's
citizens, and certainly does not reflect the trust
they have placed in us. One can ponder or speculate
as to why the Council would move in this direction,
but the appropriate course of action is to revisit
these issues and take the time do that which is right
instead of expedient. I therefore take this opportunity
to respectfully ask my colleagues to make a motion
to reconsider Order #70 and Order #73.
Sincerely,
Gary Foster
