As recently pointed out on social media - the fact is that all 4 candidates, in our various Town roles, have consistently supported tax increases through various votes. This includes voting to submit to or voting to approve budgets (that necessitated increased taxes) at Town Meeting.

The difference is that not all of us are now trying to run away from that record.

One of the reasons why I and many others moved to Auburn and others choose to stay is because of the excellent services we get from the Town. Our schools are great, our library is good, our parks are good, our trash is picked up weekly without fail, our recycle is picked up, our Fire/Police/EMS are always there when called, our sewer infrastructure is well maintained, our seniors/housing insecure/food insecure receive vital services, and even our roads are in better condition then most.

We are lucky to have dedicated Town employees who deliver these top services and while we can always do better - the fact is to maintain these services at the current levels we expect takes money and while I wish it wasn’t so, the majority of the Town’s revenue to cover these expenses is residential property taxes and just like everything else these costs increase annually.

There are ways to offset this increase on seniors (tax reductions & rebates), support small businesses through similar programs, and reduce the over all residential tax burden through expansion of our commercial tax base and I’ll post about those later because we need to do better on all 3 of these.

Costs to provide services always goes up regardless of whether it is the public or private sector providing it.

So let me be clear - I will not vote to cut our current level of services and I do so with the understanding that it will cost all of us more annually under the current system.

Not only would it hurt those who rely on them, but there is a direct correlation between our increasing property values and the services provided by the Town. I rather protect the largest (and for some only) investment we all have - our house value - then jeopardize it and those relying on those vital services. If someone says they won’t raise taxes - then they’re cutting services. It’s simple math and there is no way around that whether people want to admit it or not.

As recently pointed out on social media - the fact is that all 4 candidates, in our various Town roles, have consistently supported tax increases through various votes. This includes voting to submit to or voting to approve budgets (that necessitated increased taxes) at Town Meeting.

The difference is that not all of us are now trying to run away from that record.

One of the reasons why I and many others moved to Auburn and others choose to stay is because of the excellent services we get from the Town. Our schools are great, our library is good, our parks are good, our trash is picked up weekly without fail, our recycle is picked up, our Fire/Police/EMS are always there when called, our sewer infrastructure is well maintained, our seniors/housing insecure/food insecure receive vital services, and even our roads are in better condition then most.

We are lucky to have dedicated Town employees who deliver these top services and while we can always do better - the fact is to maintain these services at the current levels we expect takes money and while I wish it wasn’t so, the majority of the Town’s revenue to cover these expenses is residential property taxes and just like everything else these costs increase annually.

There are ways to offset this increase on seniors (tax reductions & rebates), support small businesses through similar programs, and reduce the over all residential tax burden through expansion of our commercial tax base and I’ll post about those later because we need to do better on all 3 of these.

Costs to provide services always goes up regardless of whether it is the public or private sector providing it.

So let me be clear - I will not vote to cut our current level of services and I do so with the understanding that it will cost all of us more annually under the current system.

Not only would it hurt those who rely on them, but there is a direct correlation between our increasing property values and the services provided by the Town. I rather protect the largest (and for some only) investment we all have - our house value - then jeopardize it and those relying on those vital services. If someone says they won’t raise taxes - then they’re cutting services. It’s simple math and there is no way around that whether people want to admit it or not.

I understand that some want to continue to deny that their promises to cut taxes will mean a cut in services. But it is simple math – you cannot decrease income while increasing expenses – if you decrease income, you have to decrease your spending because state law does not allow municipal governments to deficit spend like the federal government. Never mind their promises to actually spend more. That’s a recipe for financial failure.

As promised, rather than make false promises and take political cheap shots, I would rather talk about real ways to help residents in Auburn reduce their tax burden. The State has created several programs for seniors, veterans, surviving spouses, and blind residents to reduce or eliminate their property tax burden. They even created helpful guides https://www.mass.gov/service.../taxpayer-forms-and-guides

Our Town staff work hard – but we can and should do a better job of marketing these programs by putting them on the Town’s website, identifying those residents who may qualify, outreaching them in their homes and at the Senior Center, and then helping them file. If this does not reach enough people – then the Town can:

1) work with our state senator and representative to file enabling legislation to increase amounts or asset levels so more people can take advantage of it,

2) give tax credits for volunteer time like other municipalities do,

3) create deferred tax payment plans like other municipalities do,

4) looking at other systems to LIMIT the assessment increases like other parts of the country do to keep any increase in the actual $$$ paid lower

5) stop putting more and more tax burden on residents by only raising their tax rate while not raising the commercial tax rate These are real ways to help seniors to reduce their tax burden and stay in their home. No politics, no grandstanding, just real ideas to help people.

I stopped believing in trickle-down economics many years ago.

The money never flows down in our economic system, it always flows up. For that reason, I do not support the single tax rate. Instead, as Selectmen I will continue my support for businesses by prioritizing small business owners and expanding our commercial tax base through targeted incentives, infrastructure investments, and economic development.

1) Promote the Commercial Equity Tax Decrease and work with our state delegation & the chamber to get it increased to $2-3m cap through enabling legislation so more landlords who rent to small businesses receive tax breaks.

2) Create additional tax incentives for those who own & occupy the property.

3) Beef up our Economic Development support to provide help to small businesses so they can open and stay in Auburn.

4) Continue to grow the commercial tax base (which reduces our overall tax burden for everyone) by welcoming new businesses in appropriate locations in the Town.

BUT any tax rate increase placed on residents should also be placed on commercial, so we all pay our fair share.

These goals represent my commitment to put Policy over Politics and ensure No Cut to Services!

Last night at Town Meeting I kept my promise to Not Cut Services by voting in favor of the FY2024 Operating budget to ensure our community keeps providing the vital services that we rely on including Police, Fire, Schools, Libraries, DPW, EMS, Senior Services, Veteran Services, Parks & Recreation and more plus support our Town employees who provide these services.

The budget was overwhelmingly supported by over 70 fellow Town Meeting Members.

Thanks to an increase in state aide the Town was able to do this with only a 0.49% property tax rate increase.

Policy over Politics & No Service Cuts!

The Town of Auburn adopted a Complete Streets Policy in 2018 that committed the Town to (re)constructing our roads in a way that allows all users (pedestrians, cyclists, drivers, emergency services) to travel on them safely and comfortably. The program is meant to combat the threat that high speeds and increasing traffic volumes pose to all users, but particularly those most vulnerable. Progress has been slow to implement this program and while Auburn has been lucky to avoid the regional and national trend of increasing deaths on our roads since 2021 – the Auburn PD & FD social media posts are filled with reports of crashes and since we do not live in a bubble it is only a matter of time before our luck runs out. At the same time, many years ago, the Town implemented a plan to repave all roads within a 20-year period.

To help Cities & Towns implement these programs the state provides Chapter 90 funding. This has been the only consistent funding source the Town has dedicated toward these programs. However, since either of these were adopted, the cost to do this work has increased and our Chapter 90 funding is not keeping pace.

For the last 19 years I have earned a national reputation implementing roadways safety and pavement management techniques to improve both the condition and safety of our roadways. It is what I do for a living, and it is a passion of mine. While the Select Board does not directly oversee these programs – we can set agendas and priorities – and if elected I’ll make it clear to staff that we need to:

1. Invest more in our infrastructure to increase safety for all users and support our business community. I would look toward dedicating a certain % of our free cash each year toward this purpose. This does not require a tax increase as “free cash” is the term used for unexpended money from the previous fiscal year. (An easy read on Free Cash https://www.mass.gov/doc/free-cash-0/download )

2. Implement pavement preservation techniques to extend the life of existing roadway surfaces instead of simply letting them deteriorate to a point of no return. This saves money in the long run and makes the road last longer.

3. Take advantage of new authority in state law to lower speed limits and then implement safety improvements through education, engineering, and enforcement. It’s a cheap first step toward improving safety.

4. Start to construct more sidewalks to improve safety and access for pedestrians, especially those with mobility challenges, and then enforce the bylaw to stop cars from parking on them and keep these sidewalks available for pedestrians.

5. Identify and apply for state and federal grants to help cover some of the costs of this work.

There is no doubt that Auburn and Central Massachusetts, like the rest of the state, are in vital need of more housing – especially a wide variety of affordable units from 100% affordable to workforce housing and everything in between. But these projects must be well thought out, buildable, and context sensitive to surrounding environments.

Last night the Selectmen considered approval of an agreement with the developer for the Perry Place project that would commit the Town to being a proponent for the project before the State and the Zoning Board of Appeals. I spoke out against the agreement and asked them to go back to the negotiating table to secure better conditions for the abutting residents, better safeguards for the Town, and a stronger commitment to a specific number of affordable units as it relates to the area median income of the community. Below are my comments to the Board last night:

My name is Todd Kirrane, and I am a resident of 121 Hampton Street. Though I am Vice Chair of the Planning Board I speak only for myself and not in any official capacity related to any Town position I hold or in relation to my employer.

First, I want to thank Chief Lemmon for pursuing the grant funding for additional officers that brings on new staff to improve safety on our roadways and builds community in our schools without having the taxpayers fronting 100% of the cost. These grants are a great way to meet the needs of the department and the community without impacting the budget in a sizeable manner.

The rest of my comments will address Issue 6C “Final Development Agreement Perry Place – Potential Vote”. I want to thank the Board and Town staff for your hard work on this issue to date and I know that regardless of how you finally vote on this matter, you are doing so with the best interest of the Town in mind and no one should fault you for that.

The decision to enter into a LIP agreement and communicate to the State and other regulatory boards and commissions that the Town is not only a supporter – but a proponent – of a 40B project is a difficult decision and should only be done when the Town believes that it is a good project, a buildable project, and is able to receive more favorable terms than a quote unquote Un-Friendly 40B in order to protect the Town’s best interest. I have reviewed the proposed agreement and would strongly urge the Board NOT TO SIGN it at this time. In my personal view it falls far short of this threshold and is not ready for prime time.

When I last spoke on this issue several months ago, in the beginning of the LIP discussions, I urged the Board only to consider it if:

• the developer could provide plans and calculations to demonstrate that the proposed raising of the road to move out of the flood plan was in-fact buildable and would not negatively affect abutters as it relates to storm water management and if it did not, to commit to mitigating it regardless of the cost

• the developer could provide a traffic impact assessment report to demonstrate that the proposed development would not negatively impact the safety and access of all roadway users on the local roadway network and if it did not, to commit to mitigating it regardless of the cost

• the developer agrees to install a parameter fence between their property and abutting properties and to install landscaped screening such as arborvitaes between the fence and property line.

Though these are normally done at the Zoning Board of Appeals level, the LIP process escalates the process because by voting for an agreement the Selectmen and Town Manager are committing the Town to not only advocate for but to be proponents of the project. You are literally saying to the outside world – we want this project and no number of legal disclaimers about independence, etc. in the agreement will negate the impact the message your signature sends on boards, commissions, and staff that are appointed by the Board and Town Manager.

Not only that – but once you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound. There are no takebacks once the agreement is signed and sent to the state. So, you need to make sure that the agreement is truly above and beyond what the town would get out of the normal process.

With respect to what the Town is getting from this agreement – in my view it falls quite short. The fact is that 40B is not a license to ignore all rules and requirements – developers are still required to meet state and federal standards for roadway design, building design, fire codes, stormwater management, wetlands, etc. and reasonably mitigate negative impacts on these systems as it relates to safety.

Towns throughout the state extract, through the normal 40b process, more mitigation than this agreement provides.

The only thing that this agreement provides that would otherwise not be included through due diligence during a normal 40B process is payment to the Town of $20,000 a year over 5 years for recreation programs. But even that language is problematic as it does not kick in until after full occupancy. But since “full” is not defined it will be interpreted to be 100% of the units occupied. That is far outside the control of the Town and as most large property owners will tell you at least 1 unit is typically unoccupied in these size developments.

Most communities will either tie it to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or set a lower figure of 50% or 75% occupancy since that is more of a realistic bar to reach than 100%. In my mind the promise of a $20,000 payment that may never be realized is not worth a YES vote.

There is no doubt that Auburn and Central Massachusetts, like the rest of the state, are in vital need of more housing – especially a wide variety of affordable units from 100% affordable to workforce housing and everything in between. But these projects must be well thought out, buildable, and context sensitive to surrounding environments. I am in full support of these types of projects – but to date this is not one of them.

So, in summary, I would ask that you not vote tonight, but instead tell the developer that if he wants the Board, the Town Manager, and essentially the Town to be a proponent in this project he must:

1. provide plans and calculations to demonstrate that the proposed raising of the road to move out of the flood plan was in-fact buildable and would not negatively affect abutters as it relates to storm water management and if it did to commit to mitigating it regardless of the cost.

2. provide a traffic impact assessment report to demonstrate that the proposed development would not negatively impact the safety and access of all roadway users on the local roadway network and if it did to commit to mitigating it regardless of the cost.

3. agree to install a parameter fence between their property and abutting properties and to install landscape screening between the fence and property line.

4. agree to changing the $20,000 payment to be per year for 5 years following issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy OR 50% occupancy.

5. make it a true affordable housing project with committals on a certain number of units with varying percentages of AMI.

If they won’t do that than they are not really trying to be a good partner, and it can stay a normal 40B where the Town can do their due diligence and likely get the same things from them – minus the small $20,000 payout. Thank you.