A recent community Facebook page post regarding North Yarmouth’s Tax Increment Financing District (TIF) elicited a strong response from Select Board member Kate Perrin, accusing a resident of lying.
Update: Sept 17, 2022
The long-running feud between local personality Bill Young and Perrin resurfaced in comments to an August 17 post. The conflict centered around Young’s statements regarding the town’s administration of its TIF and proposed expenditures.
Young is a self-appointed spokesperson for residents who “don’t like what they see happening to North Yarmouth.” In an amateur column, previously referred to as “The Quorum”, Young shares summaries of town business and his analysis. He admits he's not one to pull punches. Followers view him as a voice of truth, but opponents believe his scathing comments sometimes cross a line.
Love him or hate him, Young’s folksy storytelling style and tendency to not censor his opinions is keeping North Yarmouth talking about current municipal issues.
Young and Perrin have sparred numerous time, including during the March building cap referendum.
Young often shares on the community Facebook page he is willing to meet with any resident to discuss anything related to North Yarmouth, especially the TIF.
In response to Young’s offer to meet to discuss his ideas for the TIF, Perrin stated, “I have no desire to meet with you given your erratic behavior and treatment of myself and my colleagues. I will review any info you’d like me to. So far, you’ve been caught in a lie when I reviewed emails between you and a state employee that you claimed said something very different than what they did. You are not an expert on TIFs. We are being advised by people who have worked in this field, implemented and amended TIFs, and have published peer reviewed articles on the subject, etc. Please just stop being so divisive. Your weird behavior is absolutely unreal at this point and lacks a single shred of self awareness (sic).”
Perrin later stated, “Even though Mr. Young repeatedly makes the accusation that the state DECD says we have made non-approved expenditures, I have emails from a DECD employee clearly stating otherwise.”
Upon request, Perrin emailed a copy of the documents to North Yarmouth Free Voice.
In a statement responding to NYFV questions regarding the basis for the online comments, Chairperson Brian Sites emailed, "The Cumberland and North Yarmouth Residents page is moderated by individuals who are not part of the North Yarmouth town government. To my knowledge, the North Yarmouth Free Voice has never asked the Select Board for comment or clarification on statements made on that page by individuals holding an elected position in North Yarmouth--regardless of the veracity or inflammatory nature of those statements--made against members of the Select Board or other elected bodies, candidates running for office, committee members, town employees, town contractors, or other community members. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to set that precedent now. I would encourage you to reach out to those individuals directly for comment."
The timeframe and reason for town officials requesting communication from a resident to a state official is unclear. An undated screenshot of an email report to Town Manager, Diane Barnes, from Jensen Baird attorney Alyssa Tibbetts, confirms obtaining a copy of a specific email exchange between Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) and Young. All other context information has been removed.
NYFV emailed the select board asking for more information and context regarding the communication. Sites responded, "[I]t was reviewed as part of our decision-making process around a TIF expenditure that was approved by two elected bodies (Select Board and Budget Committee) in the budget development process and ultimately approved by the voters at Town Meeting. The correspondence was deemed to have no bearing, materially or legally, on the expenditure voted on by the town and subsequently acted upon by the Select Board and the Town Manager."
The content of the report mostly supports statements from Young regarding the TIF.
Local opinions about the TIF have been divided since its creation. This could be related to the vague and confusing language of state statutes.
TIF rules give a lot of responsibility to municipalities to manage their district, but towns still need to operate within the bounds of the law. One clear provision states expenditures must be in support of commercial or industrial development.
Young is considered by some a quasi TIF expert. Email statements from DECD, as well as the attorney summary of the email between Young and DECD support most points Young has made.
In the email to Young, Tina Mullins [Development Program Officer for DECD] states, “The increased assessed value of a TIF District may be captured, as outlined in an approved Development Program, and may only be expended on the approved project costs outlined in the TIF Development Program, as it related to commercial or industrial development.”
Mullins further explains TIF revenues may be used for general economic development. However, it must be for an approved TIF Development Program. Additional restrictions include, “TIF revenues are not permitted to be expended on residential areas, regardless of whether these residential areas are in a TIF District or not.”
Tibbets email states, "As we have discussed and consistent with Tina's replies to Bill, the costs of a study for an eligible project within the District is permitted."
An April 2022 RFP for a fire rescue facility needs assessment rekindled the debate about what qualifies a project for use of TIF funds. At the June 2021 Town Meeting, residents voted to allocate TIF funds to four project categories. On the list was $20,000 for capital improvement projects for public safety and fire protection. Again, according to Mullins, “[T]here was an approved project of prorated capital expenditures of public safety and fire protection. TIF expenditures related to this project must be directly related to or made necessary by the establishment or operation of the TIF District, as it relates to commercial or industrial development.”
Young contends this expenditure should be prorated. He asked Mullins, “So. Part one being said, just for clarity, they can use a prorated amount for the study? The area in acres is right. The % is 1.7%, but that’s fine.”
Mullins responded, “If the study falls under the approved project costs, as it relates to the establishment or operations of the TIF District and related to commercial/industrial use, then yes.”
However, according to Tibbetts, costs associated with the RFP for a new public safety building study can be classified as professional service costs, but she did not state an opinion on whether it must be prorated.
Both Mullins and Tibbetts reference a 2021 change in state statute which permits up to 15% of a TIF District revenue to be expended on public safety building construction or operation. Adding this provision to the North Yarmouth TIF is a recommended amendment.
The North Yarmouth Select Board will begin reviewing the TIF during a workshop on September 20. Barnes stated the goal is to complete the process, so changes take effect for the next tax commitment.
Mr. Young declined to comment. NYFV has emailed the select board to clarify the context of the communications and has asked Ms. Perrin for a statement.