Selectmen threaten action against housing group
Published on March 1st, 2006
The town's Board of Selectmen threatened legal action last week against the Stoneham Housing Authority that would force the entity to pay its rubbish fee.
According to Joanne Graves, the Executive Director of the Stoneham Housing Authority, the state-funded organization has absolutely no way to foot its approximate $22,000 bill for the trash expenses.
Claiming that several requests had been submitted to state officials for supplemental funding for the garbage costs, Graves insisted that all attempts in raising those appropriations had failed.
"The problem is the only way is for the Commonwealth to pay it. We don't have the funds in our bank to pay this before the end of the year," Graves said, explaining that the local entity's budget was set before the fee was implemented.
In response to the news, several Selectmen found it ironic that the trash fee was partially implemented due to cut-backs in the town's local aid budget, a figure slashed by state officials in 2003 so that the Commonwealth could manage revenue shortfalls.
And now, with the 281 dwelling units owned by the Housing Authority already getting a 50-percent reduction in its $150 per unit rubbish fee, state officials were forcing its financial obligations onto the town's taxpayers, several Selectmen argued.
"My concern is this, we're subsidizing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by allowing you not to pay a rubbish fee," Selectman Cosmo Ciccarello remarked. "The seniors that can least afford [a rubbish fee] in this town get $50 off, whereas you're getting $75 off."
"And you're not even paying it. You're talking about how you're in trouble, but we're in trouble too. The Commonwealth has been short-changing us in terms of the PILOT money and the Chapter 70 money. And it really isn't right," Ciccarello furthered.
Referring to correspondence from state officials sent to Graves, DePinto detailed wording in the letter stating that no additional appropriations could be approved unless the town's Housing Authority ran a deficit.
Asking why the entity wouldn't be considered to be running a deficit budget if it couldn't foot its outstanding $22,000 obligation to the town, the Selectman questioned how the Housing Authority would pay for the bill if town officials refused to waive the trash fee.
Again insisting that her organization couldn't cover the expenses, Graves responded that that the term "deficit housing authority" referred to the manner in which rent rates differed from the incomes of senior residents.
"When I say the budget guidelines are zero percent, you can't have an increase. So the question is, aren't we a deficit agency. We aren't," the Executive Director answered. "It is fair to tell you, since you asked if we have stockpiles of money around, that we don't."
Upon being asked what the town could do, should the $22,000 balance not be paid, Town Counsel Bill Solomon warned the representatives that court action was the likely recourse.
Opining that the municipality had firm legal standing for accessing the trash fee, the town attorney further cautioned that the Housing Authority would probably find itself on the losing side of such a court battle.
"The irony is that you say you can't be a deficit agency because you have a balanced budget. But the Town of Stoneham is saying this is a legitimate expense," Solomon said.
"Over the past three or so years, there have been a number of meetings between the Town Administrator, Housing Authority, and Public Works Director."
"For two of those years, the representation was made that if the town implemented a town-wide trash fee, the Housing Authority would pay it. Now the town has implemented a trash fee and yet that representation hasn't been followed through."
Subscribe and get Home Delivery of The Independent
Save 36% off the newstand price — that's like 18 FREE issues!