Tis the season to argue about the TIF ? the tax increment financing ordinance that was approved unanimously by the City Council on November 19. After six months of deliberation, the TIF seemed a done deal until Mayor Bill Scanlon exercised his veto. ?To override or not to override?? That was the question before the Council at their meeting on Monday night.
There was a lot of discussion on both sides of the issue and it was clear that the councilors were frustrated by the long, twisting TIF process. Some, including Council President Paul Guanci and Ward 5 Councilor Don Martin admitted embarrassment as Beverly Main Streets supporters and local business people looked on.
Each councilor stated his or her position, some with great passion. The back and forth nature of the discussion and the sudden plot twists when an amendment to save the TIF was put forth after the veto vote was reminiscent of cliffhanger who-done-its. The animated discussion was in stark contrast to the Council?s moment of silence for the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre held at the start of the meeting.
Councilors Scott Dullea, Jason Silva, Donald Martin, Brett Schetzsle and Jim Latter all urged an override of the Mayor?s veto. ?This is a settled matter,? Ward 3 Councilor Jim Latter stated. ?If we do not override, we may never get five votes again.?
Ward 5 Councilor Don Martin stated, ?If you vote yes on something, you better be sure you agree to that vote. Votes have consequences.??
Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Troubetaris, who sided with Councilors Wes Slate and Scott Houseman to uphold the Mayor?s veto, said, ?I am not against the TIF. I am against how it will be implemented,? adding that it would make a mess of Rantoul Street in terms of parking and overcrowding.
?You want to give 70 percent to developers. You do represent the people of Beverly,? Troubetaris said, looking directly at Councilors Martin and Schetzsle, who exclaimed, ?You voted for it.?
?I did not get that letter. You did not hear me,? Troubetaris responded, in reference to her earlier comments that she had been away and did not see the letter Mayor Scanlon had sent the Council explaining his reservations with the TIF taking away the city?s negotiating power. ?I would not have voted yes if I had known that,? she said.
Councilor Latter urged colleagues to override the Mayor?s veto, saying councilors could amend the ordinance afterwards. For those who were counting, it was clear that override supporters had five votes and they needed six. There was one vote left, that of Council President Paul Guanci.
Guanci entertained a motion, which the Council approved, to step down so he could make a statement on the TIF Order 178. Vice President Wes Slate took Guanci?s role as meeting chair.
?I will be voting not to override the Mayor?s veto,? said Guanci. ?I am in favor of discussing possible amendments. While we all support the idea of creating a tax increment financing district on Rantoul Street, it may serve the Council well to take a step back and consider the Mayor?s recommendations. After speaking with the Mayor, I think his concerns have merit and need to be addressed by the Council. The (TIF) program that is being offered by the state is fairly new and I, for one, would like to get it right the first time.
?As President, maybe I am to blame for wanting to finish before the end of the year by voting the matter out earlier this month,? Guanci continued. ?When ? I say when, not if ? this initiative is passed, other cities and towns will look to Beverly as an example... I did have an amendment to propose, but found that Councilor Houseman?s order addressed more of the Council and Mayor?s concerns. I look forward to reopening lines of communication between the Council, the Mayor, and, of course, Beverly Main Streets.?
After the meeting, Guanci, a downtown small business owner, founding board member and current member of Beverly Main Streets, commented, ?I was led to believe that the Mayor and Main Streets were on the same page. I rushed the vote on November 19.?
Councilor Slate took a roll call on the override motion. With only five votes, the override failed. But just as the matter seemed settled for the night, the TIF ordinance was immediately put back into play by Councilor-at-large Jason Silva. Silva made a motion to amend the language of Order 178 to add ?up to? before 70 percent, which he hoped would satisfy the Mayor. President Guanci said, ?That is what I had wanted all along, but it did not get approved on November 19.?
While three councilors sided with Silva, the other six voted the motion down after lengthy discussion.
?I cannot support this without further discussion and the appropriate place for that is in committee,? said Houseman, who has proposed his own compromise motion.
?We are not going to rush,? said Councilor Martin, chair of the Finance Committee to which the motion was referred. ?This is not going to happen tonight. We are going to make sure that everyone is on the same page. We will deal with this after the holiday. This is not our finest moment. It is embarrassing.?
?It shouldn?t be that hard to fix. We need the City Council and the Mayor in the same room,? said Guanci.
?What have we done for the last six months? It is self-inflicted damage from here on out,? Schetzsle said.
?This is a compromise to get this done,? Silva said of his motion. ?We have talked about this for six months. Why are we talking about a rush? We talked about this language at the last meeting. Let?s get it done.?
According to Latter, it was about consistency of message. ?We can amend the TIF after it is passed. Do we approve a TIF or not? Are we sending a solid message to the business community that we support development in downtown Beverly??
Councilor Slate pointed out that the language of Order 178 passed by the Council and vetoed by the Mayor might not be accepted by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. City Counsel Roy Gelineau, who was present, confirmed Slate?s assessment.
Councilor Martin said, ?In light of Mr. Gelineau?s comments, the Mayor is not here and there is no project ready to go. There are too many questions. Tonight is not the night.?
Only Schetzsle and Latter supported Silva?s motion and it failed by a 6-3 vote. Slate announced that the matter would be taken up on Tuesday, Jan. 15 at the next regularly scheduled committee meeting.
?No one wants to see this resolved sooner than I do,? said Guanci, who referred Order 178 (the TIF) back to the Committee on Finance and the Committee of the Whole.
?
?
Source: http://www.wickedlocal.com/beverly/news/x1631895408/Beverly-City-Council-upholds-mayor-s-TIF-veto
cruise ship italy patriots broncos game saints willis mcgahee willis mcgahee ship aground off italy nfl playoff schedule 2012
