Following an email from longtime resident Bill Young questioning North Yarmouth’s Tax Increment Financing (TIF) expenditures, officials ask town attorney to contact the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). The town attorney obtains copies of Young’s communications with DECD.
Select Board Chair Brian Sites said the inquiry was initiated in response to an email from Young dated July 20. Young asked, “[W]hat happened to all the conversation about getting a plan together before going forward with any large expenditures?” Young went on to say he had an email from DECD that clearly stated TIF revenues could not be used by the town for the fire and safety study.
“The copies of emails Ms. Mullins provided to our counsel as part of their discussions were provided to us as documentation related to our counsel’s legal reading—they were not requested by me, or the Town Manager,” said Sites.
Town Manager Diane Barnes confirmed she made the request of the attorney at the direction of Sites. According to Barnes, details of the report from the attorney were forwarded to the Select Board Chair and Vice Chair on August 2. The cost billed to North Yarmouth was $168.75.
Sites said the purpose was “to follow up with our legal counsel to ensure that their legal assessment of that expenditure was in line with DECD guidance—which, as previously noted, came back from counsel that the study expenditure was, in fact, legitimate.”
Young has repeatedly argued TIF expenditure cannot be validated simply based on geography. They must be connected to commercial or industrial development. “It’s got to pass the straight-face test. If you can’t draw a line to commercial growth, you can’t do it.”
North Yarmouth officials stated they follow guidance from the town attorney regarding proposed TIF expenditures. The Select Board did not indicate why after 18 months of public statements by Young questioning North Yarmouth’s decision to create a TIF district and proposed expenditures, the Board decided it needed to take action now.
The full context of the query is not clear. Why all Board members were not advised the town attorney was investigating Young’s allegations was not explained. Additionally, the questions asked of DECD by Tibbets that prompted the state to forward Young’s email exchange were not provided.
DECD confirmed to NYFV if errors related to TIF expenditures are discovered, these can be corrected. Municipalities would work with DECD to remedy any discrepancies.
Barnes stated she asked the attorney for “confirmation that the Town can use TIF funds to fund the Fire Station Study. Follow-up with the State regarding their alleged conversation with Mr. Young since he had pointed out on several occasions that he had been in contact with the State and has emails from them.”
Criticism of North Yarmouth and officials is nothing new. A long-time resident, Young has been writing an editorial column on the community Facebook page for over a year and a half.
Comments to a recent Facebook post allege to have evidence implicating Young in a lie.
An August 17 Facebook post by Young summarizing a recent Select Board meeting prompted strong comments from Selectperson Kate Perrin. Young touched on updates from the town auditor, changes to the mil rate, and PFAS contamination, as well as increases to the TIF revenue balance.
But to Young’s further comments, Perrin took exception.
Young wrote, “Until this town puts a strategic plan for our future together it is nothing more than wasteful, frivolous spending.”
According to Young, he contacted Select Board Chair Brian Sites mid-April to schedule a meeting to discuss response he had from DECD to questions regarding North Yarmouth’s TIF. Sites declined to meet and said Young could simply forward the emails but would not be “chasing after them.”
In Facebook comments, Young stated he made a similar offer to meet with newly elected Select Board members but received the same reply. Young questioned Perrin’s TIF knowledge and lack of transparency.
To this, Perrin responded, “I included a strategic plan for 3-5 years out in our select board goals and it was discussed at the workshop that was televised and recorded. 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.”
Perrin’s comments went further, questioning Young’s TIF expertise. “Please just stop being so divisive. Your weird behavior is absolutely unreal at this point and lacks a single shred of self awareness[.]”
The dispute continued on August 25, when Young posted about what he sees as problems with the North Yarmouth TIF. Perrin commented, claiming she would make decisions regarding TIF expenditures based on guidance from experts.
She continued, “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. Happy to provide those documents for inspection. I thought a little context in this post might be helpful for those striving to make balanced and ethical decisions.”
Perrin forwarded to NYFV a screenshot of a communication from the town attorney, as well as email exchange between Young and DECD. The documents relate to a Select Board initiated investigation of statements by Young regarding North Yarmouth’s TIF.
In response to questions about Facebook posts calling Young a liar, Perrin denied making posts accusing Young of lying. Rather, she said, “I replied to two comments of Mr. Young's where he inaccurately portrays communication with me and claims to be an expert on TIF districts.”
Perrin justified her statements, “Mr. Young has made posts and comments laced with profanity, false statements, and name calling specifically towards myself and others in the community. It is my opinion that my comments were 100% accurate and warranted in regard to the six months' worth of unfounded social media statements from Mr. Young about my knowledge of TIF's, my public service tenure, and my character.”
Young denies using profanity in his Facebook posts. “I may have called some of the stuff they were doing sh--, but I never wrote profanity towards anyone.” Young says he is not aware of any of his posts being removed by administrators and has never been banned.
NYFV contacted the Cumberland and North Yarmouth Group administrator to ask what protocols are used to filter objectionable posts. At the time of publication, there has been no response. NYFV has since been blocked without explanation.
Perrin did not respond to requests for copies of Young’s comments containing profanity or further details regarding questionable posts, and whether any post considered offensive was reported but not removed.
“The image of the email from Atty Tibbett’s explaing (sic) the statements made about our board vote was requested from me to our Town Manager because of Mr. Young’s multiple claims that we acted illegally with TIF dollars,” said Perrin.
An email dated August 22 from Perrin to Barnes requested a hard copy of Young’s emails with DECD. “I have seen the paper copies, but like them for my records.” Who showed the documents to Perrin and when was not confirmed.
Perrin explained her request, “I wanted to investigate these claims and make sure that we had followed state statute and acted ethically. These claims were the impetus for the requesting of public emails between Mr. Young and the State.”
Perrin asserted her TIF experience both professionally and in public service gave her a clear understanding "these emails were being taken out of context and shared in part to support Mr. Young's relentless crusade against myself and the Select Board with whom he disagrees.”
“Someone with a different level of experience may find them less clear based on the nuance of state statute, and commercial versus residential properties contained in our district.” Perrin did not respond to further questions asking to explain what aspects of the communication required additional expertise to understand.
Selectperson Andrea Berry did not respond regarding her involvement or knowledge of the investigation.
Selectperson Paul Hodgetts was surprised to learn about the inquiry. In response to questions from NYFV, Hodgetts said he knew Young claimed to have emails from DECD. However, Hodgetts states he was not aware of or included in the decision to involve the town attorney.
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.”
According to Tibbetts email, 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.
Barnes confirmed she has not discussed proration of TIF funds for professional services with the attorney but did ask about the fire station study, specifically. Barnes stated the attorney has advised “no proration [is] necessary because the Fire Station is located within the TIF District.”
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.