Loading the meeting summary, notes, and navigation…
Hardwick Select Board Meeting: Non-Profit Contributions and Town Financial Sustainability
Original title: 12/16/24 - Hardwick, MA Select Board Meeting
These meeting notes are AI-generated and unofficial. They are provided for convenience and are not official Town records or approved municipal minutes. Verify all details using the source video and official Town documents.
Summary
The Hardwick Select Board convened to address several municipal matters, primarily focusing on a proposed policy for non-profit contributions to town services. Discussions highlighted concerns about the financial impact of tax-exempt properties and new developments on town resources, particularly schools, police, and fire. While licenses were approved and surplus equipment designated for auction, the majority of the meeting centered on the draft non-profit policy, its voluntary nature, and the challenge of quantifying both the costs incurred by the town and the intrinsic benefits provided by non-profits. The Board decided to hold a dedicated working meeting in January to further refine the policy, aiming for a framework that ensures cost recovery without unduly burdening non-profits, while also acknowledging existing pilot programs and the complexities of state-owned land.
Browse meeting notes
Now viewing
Discussion Highlights
- The meeting commenced with an acknowledgment of a pilot program and a preliminary vote on licenses, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and being called to order at 5:31 PM. The meeting is being recorded and will be available on the YouTube channel.
- The application process for various common victualer, innholder's, and auto renewal licenses was completed, with inspections by the building inspector, police, and fire departments. Non-renewals included Region's Repair, L&L Associates, Anderson Restorations, and Clement Classics.
- A list of municipal equipment, including a 1998 Trackless MTST Tractor, a 1986 Elgin Pelican Sweeper, and a 1999 Crown Vic Police Interceptor, was officially deemed surplus for auction.
- A new draft policy regarding contributions from non-profit organizations was presented, combining an initial draft and notes from the Town Council.
- One proposed change defines 'tax exempt' to apply to all non-profits classified as exempt under general law, impacting 109 tax-exempt properties in town, including significant state-owned land.
- The State currently contributes to the town through a pilot program (Quabbin Reservoir, ~$190,000) and via the Cherry Sheet (Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, ~$94,000).
- Eagle Hill Foundation has multiple properties and is already involved in two pilot programs with the town; other large non-profits include churches, the library, and the Land Trust.
- Discussions emphasized the varying service needs of different property types and the assertion that developed properties can have a negative financial impact on town services, citing public schooling costs of $20,000 per child.
- Concerns were raised about 40B housing developments not requiring Planning Board approval if the town has less than 11% inexpensive housing, making the town vulnerable.
- It was clarified that non-profits do generate revenue, tied to their 990 forms, and the proposed policy targets these revenues.
- Approximately 12 square miles of the community are state-owned (MassWildlife, DCR), primarily related to the Quabbin Reservoir, with an ongoing initiative to secure income for surrounding towns.
- The proposed non-profit contribution structure involves a 3-5% contribution based on gross revenue, with a 'catch-up surcharge' looking back 6 years; churches would be exempt.
- The policy includes provisions for quantifying 'in-kind contributions and community benefits' (Article 6), with organizations responsible for their valuation.
- Concern was expressed about making 'personal exemptions' and a desire for the policy to be 'black and white' rather than subjective.
- Eagle Hill School was cited as an example of an entity that builds housing and is tax-exempt, with the impact of their staff's children attending public schools highlighted as a cost.
- The 'incredibly expensive' nature of public education was emphasized as a key driver for seeking contributions from non-profits.
- Eagle Hill is currently in a pilot program to pay taxes on properties previously off the tax roll and has a new sewer pilot agreement.
- The importance of the policy addressing how to cover the impact on town services (school, police, fire) was stressed.
- It was clarified that the policy would serve as a framework for voluntary, negotiated agreements, with non-profits having the choice to refuse participation.
- Discussion revisited a long-standing pilot agreement with Eagle Hill, noting a verbal agreement for $25,000/year that later shifted to properties being on the tax roll, excluding the campus.
- Eagle Hill, as a tax-exempt organization, pays taxes on properties it owns where people live, including tenants' homes and four specific parcels, described as a percentage of actual real estate tax.
- If Eagle Hill sells a house, it reverts to the standard tax roll; approximately three students live on campus in non-tax-paying dorms.
- The primary goal of any policy should be to cover the town's 'hard costs' associated with non-profits, not to generate profit.
- In-kind contributions from non-profits (e.g., use of facilities, generators, fields) should be factored in as they provide significant value.
- Concern was raised that requiring a percentage of revenue from non-profits could jeopardize their operations, as they typically do not operate with high profit margins.
- A strong sentiment was expressed that the town should not be subsidizing non-profits, while also acknowledging the benefits non-profits bring (e.g., Land Trust attracting visitors, Eagle Hill offering cultural events and potential emergency shelter).
- An attendee noted that the program was initially understood as voluntary for new and existing non-profits, questioning the current level of scrutiny and imposition of minimums.
- Frustration was voiced regarding previous pilot agreements that seemed to be approved without significant town input or discussion.
- It was clarified that the current policy is a draft and does not represent the unanimous view of the entire board.
- Questions arose about how the policy would apply to non-profits with no revenue (e.g., Historical Society) or essential services (e.g., water departments), expressing concern about potentially targeting specific organizations.
- The policy was described as not 'black and white,' with differing views on what constitutes an exemption or justification.
- The overarching principle is that non-profits should not financially burden the town or its taxpayers; they should 'carry their own.'
- Suggestion to quantify the financial impact of non-profits by analyzing town service calls (police, fire, ambulance) and sewer usage.
- Discussion initiated on a policy for town hall reimbursement, either through direct money or a 'value-add' contribution.
- The current proposal for a 3% revenue contribution and a 'catch-up surcharge' for non-profits (going back 60 years) is viewed as problematic and potentially causing 'heartache' for organizations.
- Concerns were raised about the 'optics' of the proposal and the need to distinguish between organizations, especially those that don't directly impact town expenses.
- A suggestion was made to focus on the actual costs incurred by the town for services provided to specific organizations (e.g., ambulance calls, police calls, fire calls, number of students).
- A working group was proposed to compile facts and figures to ensure fairness in any new policy, with the biggest impact anticipated on the school.
- Any policy should include annual review and flexibility to adjust if an organization's resource consumption or needs change.
- The importance of being a 'good neighbor' was highlighted, acknowledging that non-profits provide community benefits (e.g., employing residents, running food pantries, maintaining trails, education) that have intrinsic value.
- The state was identified as a significant 'violator' in terms of not contributing for its land use (e.g., conservation land), as the current proposal's 3% revenue model would not apply to them.
- The idea of a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) was suggested as a reasonable and fair way to cover the cost of services provided by the town.
- It was clarified that ambulance services are paid for through the town's budget ($60,000 for emergency services).
- The overall goal is to work together to find common ground, ensuring the policy is not a burden on non-profits.
- Discussion centered on establishing a contribution structure for town services on a case-by-case basis, focusing on covering actual costs rather than a percentage of revenue.
- The proposed structure would include an annual review to ensure fairness and adapt to changing costs, similar to existing inter-municipal agreements, referencing Section 4 which mandates an annual report on town service usage by private entities.
- Acknowledgment of the challenge in assigning monetary value to non-quantifiable community benefits (e.g., beauty of landscape, community building initiatives).
- Debate on whether the town's policy is perceived as 'anti-not-for-profit' and if it encourages or discourages their presence, with a specific mention of attracting medical non-profits.
- The policy should serve as a tool to encourage dialogue and collaboration, rather than mandating reporting of data already tracked by emergency services.
- Discussion on the merits of a formal written policy (stability despite changing administrations) versus direct, informal conversations (avoiding undue burden).
- Emphasis on the policy being a guiding financial principle for the town to ensure cost recovery for services, potentially through user fees or taxes.
- A question was raised regarding why a simple policy wasn't implemented earlier, with a focus on addressing the issue now.
- Clarification that the proposed is a 'policy' (voluntary engagement) rather than a 'rule,' though non-compliance would lead to discussions.
- It was noted that in the past, non-profits were billed for emergency services after a certain number of calls, a practice that has since ceased but highlights unrecovered costs.
- Concerns were raised about non-profits claiming inability to pay and the definition of 'revenue' for entities like land trusts (contributions vs. operational income).
- Initial discussion centered on the demand placed on town services by land use, including an estimated 10 calls per year for lost people, raising a question regarding why citizens should bear the cost for emergency services on land trust properties.
- A speaker highlighted the economic benefits of open space, land trusts, and trail networks, citing studies and surveys, including recreational access and value from maintenance investments.
- A recommendation was made to evaluate the economic benefits of open space and land trusts concurrently with the evaluation of service requirements, seeking estimates to balance against service costs.
- The concept of 'intrinsic value' of open space was discussed, acknowledging its difficulty to quantify in monetary terms but emphasizing its significance.
- It was argued that protecting land (preventing subdivision) saves the town millions in future service costs, referencing COCS studies indicating residential lands often cost more in services than they generate.
- The town's role as custodian of 8,000 acres of water supply for Eastern Massachusetts was highlighted, arguing for economic credit and benefit, with current proposals from senators supporting this.
- A significant concern was raised regarding the voluntary nature of the proposed policy, questioning why the town would spend time and legal resources on a policy that cannot be enforced.
- It was clarified that the proposed policy is intended as a guideline, not a mandatory regulation, and Eagle Hill was mentioned as already implementing practices aligned with the proposed policy, having two pilot programs underway.
- Concern raised that the proposed policy, if not met, could lead to the town being 'villainized' and unable to pay, highlighting public unawareness of existing pilot programs and tax contributions from certain entities (e.g., forgiving a $500,000 sewer loan).
- Argument that a new policy negating existing ones, if not met, would reflect poorly on the non-profit (Eagle Hill), with a suggestion to work with entities individually.
- View expressed that the new policy should not apply to Eagle Hill as they are already in pilot programs and have received past concessions, countered by the argument that agreements should be entered in good faith.
- Assertion that non-profits should cover their costs if they burden the town, with disagreement that Eagle Hill School is a burden, and a claim that the town incurs a 'negative' due to Eagle Hill students attending public schools, citing '20 grand a head' cost.
- Counter-argument that non-profits bring value through jobs, business, and programming, which should be factored in.
- Clarification that the proposed policy is primarily for *new* non-profits to establish guidelines, acknowledging existing arrangements, but concern remains that the policy is voluntary and therefore unenforceable.
- Emphasis that no single entity should be singled out, advocating for community collaboration over 'enforcement issues,' with a suggestion to research the City of Boston's program for universities and institutions as a model.
- Concern was expressed about the 'cost of doing everything' and the need to identify funding sources related to the auction cancellation, noting that stopping the work would constitute a breach of contract.
- It was stated that current costs for the auction cancellation are 'double that now,' with a specific mention of '$1000 per day' for certain items.
Transcript (12,097 words)
Lightly cleaned for readability. Each timestamp opens the video at that point.
- 00:00:00
The pilot program and we also have a quick vote on some licenses and um yeah that's it so I would ask everybody to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge of aliance United States
- 00:00:23
Amer with liberty and justice all right thank you we are going to quickly vote on some licenses that still had needed inspections whatever yeah what if you want to
- 00:00:41
Call the order uh call me the order at 531 um and this me this meeting is also being recorded and is on um our YouTube channel too just so everyone's aware um so we finished up our
- 00:01:00
Application process um the building inspector police department and finance I mean sorry not Finance fire department has done all their inspections so I'm asking tonight that the select board renew uh the following licenses tons of stuff to sign um for common vict licenses the southberry rot and Gun Club
- 00:01:19
Hardwick Vineyard and Winery also their in holders license Eagle Hill Foundation Hardwick Rod and Gun Club dctf Corp the Old Furnace General Store Hardwick market and Package Store Mimi's Coffee House of Hardwick Hardwick Crossing Hardwick House of Pizza and the Whistle
- 00:01:38
Stop restaurant for common vular and for Class 2 and class three Auto renewals LNS used auto parts glesby Car Care One gagy garage LJ ay repair motor Specialties company Hardwick Auto
- 00:01:57
Sales regions repair l Associates um and there were two companies that did not renew this year um and those are Anderson Restorations and cler Classics because they didn't want to they were nonresponsive okay yeah
- 00:02:16