News
ARA balks at deal
Top Headlines "It's not enough money," Stevenson said in the wake of the deal hammered out between city Councilor Brian Kirby and Mayor Kevin Dumas and agreed to by the full council on Tuesday. "I appreciate all the work they did on it, but I don't think that big of a cut is acceptable," Stevenson said. Stevenson was out of town on Tuesday and not available for comment. The money would come from the federal government's Community Development Block Grant or some other source deemed appropriate by Dumas. The council voted 10-0 to approve the CDBG budget without an allocation for the ARA, but that vote is based on a deal that the mayor will provide money for the agency. ARA officials were hoping to get at least $150,000 from the block grant, which is appropriated annually to pay for an array of local social services and economic development initiatives. The $150,000 would be about half the $301,000 available for economic development efforts. The grant is worth a total of about $463,000. The ARA's original request was for $175,000, but the authority cut its budget by about $35,000 and reduced the request to $150,000 last week. The lack of money will have a serious impact on progress at the industrial business park now under construction, Stevenson said. "It's going to affect the project," he said. Money for legal fees, appraisals, engineering and supervision of the project is crucial to keep the project, which is expect to produce operating money for the ARA and tax money for the city, on course, he said. Meanwhile City Councilor Brian Kirby, main architect of the deal, said he believes the agency can get by. "I think they have enough to do what they need to do," he said. Kirby said the ARA could get as much as $100,000. On Tuesday Dumas said the ARA should trim more money from its new budget of about $554,000 to help make up the difference. Dumas has argued the ARA should be self-sufficient and that the city needs to do some short term projects, including an 18-unit affordable housing project in South Attleboro and facade improvements downtown.
Post Your Comments Realist wrote on May 1, 2008 5:31 PM: " Is there a definition of "affordable housing"? " jose21 wrote on May 1, 2008 3:04 PM: " Kevin - How does affordable housing mean more crime? Seriously, is that based on statistics, or the opinion of the people that use affordable housing? I have no idea if it's true or not, just wondering where you got that stat. " citified39@yahoo.com wrote on May 1, 2008 11:09 AM: " I too think it's time the ARA folds the operation and hands it back over to the City. With their bloated base salaries (key word BASE SALARY) show me just how much over $105,000.00 Milanoski makes for a job he needs to hire professionals to help out with. Even with the Mayor under pressure to balance the City's budget without out to much pain to the employee's the ARA is demanding the money and threatening the City if it doesn't get it. The Mayor offers at least 75,000 up to 150,000 if they clear all their issues with HUD and that still is not enough. Take your bat and ball and go back to Cohasset Mr. Milanoski you really don't know Attleboro. It's time the cash cow stopped and your little organization became independent from the City or put back in the hands of the City. " attlebrockton wrote on May 1, 2008 8:44 AM: " The downtown renewal has the required 20 percent affordable/worker housing component .If that percentage is correct the "renewal" project will have some 60 units of affordability. don't forget the city gets a kick back from the state per unit.Should this have been voted on ? " kevin h. wrote on May 1, 2008 8:02 AM: " Why is the city in the real estate business? Affordable housing means more services needed and less taxes to the city. And more crime. " Harry Hindsight wrote on May 1, 2008 8:01 AM: " Good for the Mayor, he may have gave some ground but he didn't cave in. It seems to be a lifeline for the ARA to either perform or close down. I'm sure that if the ARA is not all that happy with what they were given, they should turn it back to the city and fold the operation. Why spend the $75K on a project that the ones running it now say "is crucial to keep the projects ". I'm sure there are other departments in the city that would love a share of that $75K. How about putting it as a down payment of the Oak Hill Farm property? " attlebrockton wrote on May 1, 2008 6:28 AM: " This full court press & arrogance is astounding.They have pushed the Feather ruffler to the back burner & wheeled out Pret for a softer sell. " or
|