Nov. 8, 2002, letter from Arlington Treasurer John J. Bilafer to Daniel J. Murphy, Division of Legal Services, Department of Revenue, Boston
RE: Debt Exclusion Vote For Arlington School Renovations
A question has arisen over the manner of expenditures of certain funds in regard to a Debt Exclusion Vote in the Town of Arlington for rebuilding and renovation of the Peirce, Dallin, Thompson and Stratton Schools that took place on April 1, 200[0]. First, let me stress that this letter is not about a Department of Revenue determination of the total amount of money that may be expended on these schools as adjusted for changed circumstances and inflation. The total amount which was represented to the electorate attributable to these projects was 34.5 million dollars.
Enclosed are various override documents the pertinent portions of which are highlighted, and which documents are identified as follows:
1. Official Ballot -- Annual Town Election April 1, 2000
4. Tax Impact Analysis and Miscellaneous Campaign literature distributed to voters,
As a result of an announced reimbursement delay by the SBAB [state School Building Assistance Bureau] for the building projects covered by Arlington’s debt exclusion vote, the Town sold bonds in the amount of 10.2 million dollars for the construction of the Peirce School, and the entire amount of the first year’s debt service ($837,734) was added to the FY '02 tax rate, leaving a balance of $2.6 million dollars of remaining taxpayer “capital” to construct the remaining three schools.
I as Town Treasurer and at least one of the leaders of the override campaign believe that the Peirce School bonding has “eaten up” most of the 37 percent of the Town’s share of all the debt exclusion projects. We have taken the position, therefore, that the Town cannot build the next school, the Dallin, and the remaining two schools (Thompson and Stratton) absent another override, or until state reimbursements are received in an amount so that the state money sufficiently reimburses the Town to the point where expenditures of Town funds for both the Peirce and Dallin when added together as reduced by the reimbursement received does not exceed 37 percent of the 34.5 million dollar figure.
Your opinion is requested with regard to the following questions:
1) Under Proposition 2 1/2 can the Town increase the exempt portion of the tax rate up to 34.5 million dollars regardless of the scheduling of reimbursements by the state?
2) What is the DOR position with regard to adherence by town officials concerning both oral and published representations made to taxpayers during the course of a debt exclusion campaign?
Your prompt response to this inquiry would be greatly appreciated.
| 
