Notes from the Annual Town Meeting (TM), May 19, 2025, televised and in person only
To speak or vote at TM, a person must be present in the room, therefore, TM is televised but not on Zoom.
Moderator Gary Johnston called the meeting to order. There was an explanation of how to use the clickers. The first seven articles of the Warrant, mandated by law to be first, all passed. Article 17 was the last article on the Warrant — Article 18 was withdrawn, and Article 19 was the standard inquiry, is there any further business, made before adjourning TM.
At the discretion of the Moderator, Article 17, A Citizen’s Petition, was moved from last place on the Warrant to the first place possible — Article 8.
Carole Owens read the petition and asked the Moderator if she might add a clarification. Given permission, Owens explained:
Background
The figure of $600,000 was the amount offered in a contract from Jim Scalise to the Miles Moffatt Trust for 35 acres on Interlaken Cross Road in February 2025. The contract could not be executed unless the Town released its Right of First Refusal. If the Town exercised its right of first refusal that would supersede the Scalise contract, and the Town would pay $600,000 from Free Cash and own the property.
Privately owned land is placed in Chapter 61 to save on real estate taxes. The conservation restriction can be lifted any time but while it is in place, the owner has a reduction in taxes. The amount exempted is shifted to and paid by the rest of us — just as it is with the Residential Tax Exemption. When land is removed from Chapter 61 at the owner’s discretion, the owner pays some of the prior tax savings and the Town by law is granted the first right to purchase. Possibly, Stockbridge could have exercised it before another offer was made and potentially paid less.
Clarification
Because the Community Preservation Committee conditionally pledged $100,000 and a group of citizens proposing Article 17 raised $80,000, the maximum the Town would have to spend from Free Cash would be $420,000 leaving over $1million dollars in Free Cash. In addition, if the Town opted to sell 2 building lots, conserving 31 acres, then the amount spent could be as low as $120,000 from Free Cash.
Proponents argued that Stockbridge would be stronger and more able to control growth and development if it owned the land, especially with Chapter 61 properties where the Town has the Right of First Refusal. They urged folks to vote yes to take a stand against over-development in Stockbridge. The meteoric rise in property values in Stockbridge creates a profit margin very attractive to developers. Stockbridge needs to push back or be swallowed up by development. On just 27 acres at Desisto, a developer is building a hotel with 133 residential units, 2 restaurants with 250 seats, conference space, a pool and tennis courts plus 23 single-family houses and 4 townhouses. 35 acres is no small area, proponents argued, and the size of development should be controlled. At the same time, there would be real estate tax income from 2 or maximum 3 homes as well as the return on investment for the Town.
Opponents argued about depleting Free Cash — that is spending $600,000 of the $670,000 in Free Cash.
Owens asked Steve Shatz, Finance Committee member who mentioned those figures, to please tell the assembly home much was in Free Cash. Shatz refused to answer and asked Town Administrator to answer. Michael Canales confirmed there was $1,550,000 in Free Cash. An expenditure of $420,000 would leave $1,130,000 in Free Cash and sales could replenish that.
Some opponents said they did not wish Stockbridge to be in the real estate business. Jonathan Gotlieb argued that the land may not be salable, and Stockbridge may lose money. Apparently contradicting that argument, others pointed out that the offer of $600,000 by a developer far exceeded the assessed value. Opponents wanted to spend on affordable housing. Scalise spoke and gave no indication he was interested in building affordable housing, leaving the Town buying it as the only option to control the use of the land, to control what was built and how much, still this was articulated as an argument against Town purchase. Finally, representatives of organizations intended to preserve our land seemed to argue that the particular 35 acres on Interlaken Cross Road was not pretty enough to save.
Just before the vote was called, the Moderator announced that Article 17 would require a 2/3 vote to pass. Stockbridge Updates would welcome an explanation from Town Counsel as to why. General understanding is that spending from Free Cash is by majority vote while spending from the Stabilization Fund requires a 2/3 vote. In either case, Article 17, the Citizen’s Petition, was roundly defeated, but more information and expert information is always welcome.
When Article 13 was passed, Free Cash was depleted, not by $420,000 or $120,000, but by $880,000. That amount was transferred from Free Cash to the Stabilization Fund with the blessing of the Finance Committee, Select Board, and Town Administrator. Again, SU would welcome an explanation: if how much remained in Free Cash was a serious consideration when debating Article 17, why was it so drastically depleted without discussion by Article 13?
Editor’s note: 1. One speaker suggested CPC is only tax dollars. According to the Commonwealth “In Massachusetts, Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds are made up of a combination of local property tax surcharges and matching funds from the Massachusetts Community Preservation Trust Fund. The local surcharges are typically a small percentage of property taxes, while the trust fund receives revenue from surcharges on real estate transactions at the Registry of Deeds and Land Court. 2. From inception, municipalities are in the real estate business. It is their core business. In the 1600s and 1700s in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, the General Court in Boston allowed areas to incorporate, become towns, when they met certain conditions (Stockbridge in 1739). Their first order of business when incorporated was to establish property lines, legally confer ownership, and establish rate paying obligations. The business towns conduct is in real estate — zoning, protecting ownership, roads, bridges. The town levies real estate taxes to pay for all these items. 3. Corrections of fact were not made by the Finance Committee, Town Administrator, Town Counsel or Select Board. Stockbridge Updates would deeply appreciate corrections in real time and thank all representatives in advance for kind consideration of this suggestion.
