34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Attleboro holding land auction
Top Headlines Eight parcels, acquired through tax foreclosures and ranging in size from 1,000 square feet to more than 15,000 square feet, will go on the auction block May 28. Combined assessed value of the lots is about $280,000. City Treasurer Ethel Sandbach, who has run a number of similar sales in the past, said financial problems facing the city next year pushed her to hold another sale in hopes of blunting impact of the deficit. "The main reason we're doing this is to help the city with some cash flow," she said. "Every little bit helps." One-time city expenses It's not certain how much the auction will raise, but the money would be available by September in the city's free cash account. Free cash, or surplus cash, from a prior year is usually certified by the state in September. The money would most likely be used for one-time city expenses, Sandbach said. Committee member and city assessor Stan Nacewicz said the parcels are the best the city owns and have value for builders or abutters. "We're putting properties out there that have value," he said. "We're not putting junk out there." The parcels are located on Tyson Place, Summit Street, Evergreen Road, Oakland Avenue, Martin Street, Baker Street and Powers Lane. Anyone interested in bidding on the parcels can get a packet of information from the treasurer's office starting on May 13. The packet, which costs $10, will describe all the parcels available and auction procedures. Minimum deposit on successful bids will be the lesser of $10,000 or 25 percent of the bid amount. It must be paid in cash, money order or bank check on the night of the auction. The successful bidder has 30 days to close on the deal. The auction is slated for May 28 at 7 p.m. in city council chambers. For more information call the treasurer's office at city hall, 508-223-2222.
Post Your Comments sabdab wrote on Apr 29, 2008 7:23 PM: " Harry & Kevin, again it's econimics... how do you fund the town budget with only a 2 1/2 percent increase each year when something like fuel, oil or electricity (never mind health care) go up 40 or 50% in the same amount of time? Our local towns have cut back year after year, our portion to "savings" or "rainy day funds" have been tapped time and again to help ease the budgets, but you can't go much lower. You can't expect every child to go to "private school" with a tuition to pay for thier share because you don't like there is no money left for other public services. Taxes are for public services and public schools are public services. There are some places where the town can "fee" the parents (if you live less than 2 miles from school or any pupil 7th grade and above no matter how far they live, then the down does not have to supply bus service, clubs, sports etc) and most do!!! (some parents in my town pay over $1000.00 extra per year), but basic needs still have to be met. It's a battle for these committies to be fair to everyone, but something like trash bags goes across the board and again is the entire town pitching in like a community should. " harry hindsight wrote on Apr 29, 2008 6:51 PM: " Is it possible that the schools could be self sufficient? It is a service provided by the city ( same as the water department )that could be paid for by the amount of service provided. Much as residents that have wells and or septic systems do not pay water or sewer fees, then those without school age children would not have to fund that service. Bear I admit to your point on the contractors being quite valid. But wouldn't that be the same as living in Attleboro and having a stroke in Mansfield. Should the Mansfield ambulance come for me even though I do not live in that town? I want to say that charging for ambulance rides has only been around for 15-20 years. Before that it was called Mutual Aid. " Bear wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:57 PM: " Inspectors fees are determined by statues from the commonwealth. Cities and towns do have the right to set their own rates however. Why shouldn't someone have to pay for these services? Imagine a developer building a subdivision and not having to pay for ANY inspection fees? The delevoper might not even live in the city - yet ALL the taxpayers of the city should have to "pay" the developers way? " Bear wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:52 PM: " The commonwealth of MA states that every city & town has to spend a minimum amount per pupil each year based on a formula that they provide. This is why no city or towm in the commonwealth has a "seperate" budget. The school does have a seperate budget in so much as how it is prepared and funds spent. " Bear wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:47 PM: " Harry and Kevin want everything "their" way. The water& sewer are enterprise funds. That means that they are to be self sufficient (pay for themselves), that way the city CAN'T overcharge for the service provided and funnel that money to the general fund - bypassing prop 2 1/2. " kevin h. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:32 PM: " Jose, So where are your "facts and solid points"? " kevin h. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:30 PM: " Sabdab you stated "As for trash, be greatful you only pay for bags, my town does not have trash pick up and we have to pay a private company and get a quartly bill." For your information Attleboro residents pay for bags AND a quarterly bill. " kevin h. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:26 PM: " Hey Harry, I guess Sabdab and Jose21 don't get the irony. The city pulled the utilities out of the general budget so they could not have to adhere to the 2 1/2 % increase limit. This allowed them to crank up the money going to education that would have gone to utilities that year. If they do the same for education it would be so easy to stay to the limit and fee the heck out of the school users. Get it guys? We don't want any fees outside the general budget because the city can crank them up without restraint. Bottom line... Put the utilities BACK INTO the general budget and limit increases to 2.5%! Stop spending and using fees as a financial trick to circumvent the spirit of Prop 2 1/2! " sabdab wrote on Apr 29, 2008 3:26 PM: " So we are back to general economics. Mass passed a law several years ago that restricts raising "real estate" taxes by more than 2.5% per year. If an town utility bill goes up by more than 2.5% (gas was $2.00-$2.50 in Jan 07 and is now $3.50 per gallon, oil very similar) that part of the budget goes way up and you have to take away from something else. Once you no longer have anything else to cut/take away, where do you come up with that money? If the town/city does not pass an "override" to pick up the extra, then the only way to make up the difference is in "fees". If you trash collection service went up more than the budget allowed, then the town/city has to cut something else or pass along the increase in a "fee". The trashbag fee seems very reasonable. It's not always fair, it's not always favorable by the town... and if you have another solution, let us know. Every town in Mass is in the same situation and looking for that right answer. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Apr 29, 2008 2:41 PM: " Sabdab, you make valid points, but you missed my point. I don't like the idea of paying for services as you go. I want my taxes to pay for all the city services and not be singled out for the few in the city that are pay as you go like the trash bags and ambulance rides. I don't understand why we have to pay for a permit, when the building, health inspector is already a paid town employee. Their service should be part of my property taxes much like the snow removal and street repair. Should I have to pay $10 every time the fire department comes to my house, or $20 for the police to respond, I hope never. The whole basis for this thought is that when trash removal fees were being raised by the contracted company to the city, the solution that was implemented was to charge those that use more than an acceptable amount be charged via bags for the extra pick up. If every household is allowed X number of children to attend public schools free, then those with X + 1 would pay an extra fee. " jose21 wrote on Apr 29, 2008 2:27 PM: " Sabdad, that was an intelligent fact based post. You obviously don't know the rules. This is a forum for people to complain, not to provide facts and make solid points. Come back when you're ready to cry about the ARA. " sabdab wrote on Apr 29, 2008 1:20 PM: " So Harry, How do you decide who pays for the police and fire? Only those who are assulted, burned out or in a crash? How about town hall, there are many departments there... are only the people who use them supposed to pay for them? How about street repair or plowing? What if you don't own a car, should you not have to pay for those? No, as a community we have certain things that are "public service". Our taxes pay for them. As for trash, be greatful you only pay for bags, my town does not have trash pick up and we have to pay a private company and get a quartly bill. At least with bags, it's fair across the town and you pay for it evenly. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Apr 29, 2008 12:14 PM: " Sabdab, you state that Communities are not a-la-carte, but they are. My taxes pay for the building inspector, yet if I do not pull a permit, I am not using that service therefore I do not have to pay out extra. By your model, permits, public transit, excise tax and trash bag fees should be covered by our property taxes. I think the elderly should be on a lower tax rate than the rest of us and veterans should have the best health coverage available to them for free. I can only account for myself and say that it should be all or nothing. If they are going to make us pay extra fees for an extra trash bag, then the simplicity of charging those that use the schools extra is the same mentality. " sabdab wrote on Apr 29, 2008 10:59 AM: " Glad to see you both actually want to belong to a community, oh wait, you don't... pay as you go. Communities are not a-la-carte. As you say it, don't care for the elderly, don't care for the veterns, don't care for anyone buy yourself. Yes, taxes are tough, but it's how we pay for public things. Next you will say you don't drive on most of the streets in town, so why should you pay for the highway department to plow the town. Good going and I'm glad you don't run my town!!! " Harry Hindsight wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:25 AM: " Oh boy, kevin h, I've been saying that all along. It's the best way to balance the budget and have those that use the service pay for it. None of this, " My parents paid for your child's education, why shouldn't you pay for mine" stuff. We didn't have to pay for special bags for our trash 10 years ago, so things change, not always for the best. Come on kevin h, if one person says it, they are crazy, if two say it,they are out of touch, if we can get more to suggest this policy, we may be on to something! " kevin h. wrote on Apr 29, 2008 9:19 AM: " How about taking education out of the general budget like the city does with trash, sewer, and water? One would pay for what they use and the city can get around prop 2 , so they can raise the fee as high as they want. They hosed us on the utilities, why not the folks who use the schools? Voila! A balanced budget. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Apr 29, 2008 7:59 AM: " What ever happened to creating open space and parks. Or let's go another route and donate the property to a non-profit with the idea that they bring their survices to the city. Donate a parcell that a soup kitchen could build their facility or even a social program provider. The city owns these lands, why not do something tangable with them instead of getting cash that the schools will suck up. " or
|
