15

THE REVERE ADVOCATE – FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 2023 Page 15 PARCELS | FROM Page 5 not educational costs, when there is no need to do it? For some towns this will be a punishing cost. Chelsea, Revere, Malden and Saugus will pay the most. Why was the forested Hilltop site chosen when the Prefeasibility study rejected it and there are 30 acres of developed land on the existing campus? Project documentation prepared by PMA and submitted to the MSBA show there are 2 viable alternatives that meet the same educational requirements on the lower campus, the previously mentioned sites on the current practice fi eld behind the school (C.1) and the other on the current football fi eld (C.2). Even now the project team will not state how they intend to use the current football fi eld (the replacement fi eld will be close to the current Breakheart entrance). This prompted concerned citizens to review SBC materials and other project documentation. What they found were multiple references to a “Future Hockey Rink” shown and discussed in the months leading up to the SBC’s vote to recommend the Hilltop Building Site (C.3) in December 2020. The Future Hockey Rink was clearly a factor in the site selection, as evidenced by the Final Evaluation of Alternatives narrative prepared by PMA and submitted to the MSBA. There it stated “The district gains additional athletic fields with this option [C.3] and maintains the potential of reserving the current football fi eld/ track for future development as a hockey rink.” Again, when MSBA reviewers asked for justifi cation for the high site preparation costs related to putting the school on the hill, the project team responded “The new football fi eld and track is replacing the existing fi eld and track that is inaccessible, in poor condition, and is being reserved for future recreational development (outside of this Project).” The project team continues to deny the hockey rink was a factor in the site selection, but it was undeniably referenced in their decision making process and in their response to the MSBA for justifi cation of the level of site development. Maybe the question is not why would the SBC accept an impractical, unsafe design and environmental damage. Maybe the question is - who benefi ts? By locating the school on the forested hilltop, the 11 other towns in the district will pay to address the ledge and build a road through wetlands and forest habitat. Eleven other towns will pay to cut down trees, grub out soil and blast away Wakefi eld’s last forest core habitat (a state designation). Now Wakefi eld can get the sports facility and road they have wanted for years but would not pay for themselves. Developers can easily and aff ordably build whatever “facility” they want (2 sheets of ice, stadium seating, concessions and parking) on the current football field. Wakefield and NEMT will receive fees as the lessors for use of the land. When will Stephen Maio, Wakefi eld’s Town Administrator, and David DiBarri, NEMT’s Superintendent, have this opportunity again? The School Building Committee members have yet to publicly acknowledge that there are better, less expensive and safer site options for the new school. District residents have asked and spoken of real concerns about the safety of the access to the new school and of the 1100 foot long system of stairs and ramps. The residents were told not to worry, there will be liability insurance. The MSBA has never visited the site and appears to accept all information submitted by the PMA and DRA. Wakefi eld’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) could only discuss the plan presented to them (C3, the hilltop forest plan). Wakefi eld’s Conservation Commission can only evaluate the plan presented to them. Citizens filed an environmental review request with the state. Since the SBC is currently denying there are long-term plans to build a hockey rink (even though they previously told the MSBA that the future hockey rink played a role in the site choice), the building plan does not trigger an environmental review. A new energy park will be built on the article 97 forest land abutting the school that will leverage solar power generated from the school rooftop to benefi t Wakefi eld energy customers. The Energy Park is described as part of the school project when the gas and light company wants voters to approve the use of the public land. It is described as not part of the school when they’re trying to avoid environmental review, which they have done. The WMGLD (Wakefi eld Municipal Gas and Light Department) has submitted a plan to the state to “take” the public land. Where is the technical scrutiny and oversight? Where is that amazing system of checks and balances we have in this country? I ask the following questions as an ordinary citizen. There is a confl ict of interest law, which states that all municipal employees are required to act in the public interest. The NEMT SBC has a responsibility for all 12 towns, yes? Do the 11 other towns in the NEMT district feel that decisions have been made in their interest? How would the 11 other towns know of Wakefi eld’s long desire for a hockey rink? Nor did citizens know about the plan to destroy the forest, even when we voted for the funding to build the school in January 2022. You can read about that here at the Reading Post “Why-didnt-thepublic-know-about-the-planto-build-the-new-voke”. There is something called the Right to Honest Services. It is about transparency and deception and includes a breach of a fi duciary duty. Why didn’t Wakefi eld pay for a rink if they wanted one? Isn’t this a plan to achieve a goal, a benefi t, that Wakefi eld and NEMT could not gain on their own? The NEMT project team maintains that the school property is private land. It is public land which is why all costs will be paid by the public. The school project has tens of thousands of public dollars for legal fees. When we question aspects of this project to state agencies, we are advised to get a lawyer. Over the course of a year there has been extensive outreach to Massachusetts’s statelevel legislative leaders, with little signifi cant response. Many representatives that claim to prioritize the environment nevertheless support blasting of the rock outcrop forest and wetland habitat. It is rare to even get an acknowledgment of a letter or email. Perhaps this accounts for why Massachusetts ranks 29th in the country for environmental protection. The safety issues posed by the ridiculous ramp design and lack of sidewalks within the campus cannot be remedied. According to the project’s Site Phasing Plan, students will lose access to the baseball fi eld, football fi eld and lower practice fi eld while the hill is dewatered and rock is crushed for months right behind the existing school. Voters were told this site option was the least disruptive. Wakefi eld’s beautiful native forest will turn into a rock quarry and then a parking lot. Don’t forget the resulting cliff at the back of a high school. Maintenance for this school site will always cost more. As district residents, we will also pay for the liability insurance for the least safe, most expensive, most environmentally damaging school site. They may deny the rink and they may delay the rink, but by choosing the hilltop location of C.3 we will all pay dearly for it. All of that cost will not be for a better school. It will be for a rink or sports facility that Wakefi eld and NEMT could not achieve on their own. There are better, far safer and less expensive site options. I urge you to go to tinyurl. RELOCATING OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS FOR ESTATE TAX SAVINGS I f you were to move to Florida, Texas, New Hampshire, or to any other state that has no estate tax, or to a state with a much higher estate tax exemption than Massachusetts, you still need to be aware that if you own real estate in Massachusetts, you will most likely have to pay a Massachusetts estate tax. Let’s say you have a rental property in Boston worth $750,000 and you live in Florida. You also have $1million in stocks, bonds and savings accounts. The Estate Tax Bureau in Massachusetts will require you to fi le a Massachusetts estate tax return. If you divide $750,000 by $1,750,000, you arrive at 42.86 percent of your total estate located in Massachusetts. You would then calculate the Massachusetts estate tax based upon the $1,750,000. After that initial tax is calculated, you would then multiply it by 42.86 percent to arrive at the balance due to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In this example, the initial Massachusetts estate tax would approximate $81,000. You would then multiply $81,000 x 42.86 percent to arrive at a balance due to the Commonwealth of $34,717. One way to avoid this $34,717 estate tax is to place the rental real estate into a limited liability company (LLC). Once title is transferred to the LLC, you will own a membership interest in the LLC which is similar to owning stock in a corporation. As a Florida resident, the value of the membership interest in the LLC (i.e. the value of the real estate) will not be part of your Massachusetts taxable estate thereby eliminating the need to fi le Form M-706, Massachusetts Estate Tax Return. If you are a resident of Florida, if you decide to keep your old primary residence in Massachusetts to reside there during the summer months for example, if you place that residence into an LLC, you may not be able to claim the capital gain exclusion of $500,000 for a married couple upon the sale of your primary residence. However, if the old primary residence was owned by you in your own name for at least two of the fi ve years prior to the sale, you would still be able to claim the $500,000 exclusion even if for three of those fi ve preceding years, title was in the name of the LLC. If the rental property located in Massachusetts is held by the LLC and you are the only owner of the membership interest, then no separate tax return needs to be fi led for the LLC as it is a single member LLC for tax purposes. Likewise, if a Trust owns the membership interest in the LLC, it is still considered to be a single member LLC and no separate tax returns need to be filed. The rent income and expenses are reported on Schedule E. If two or more individuals or two or more Trusts own membership interests in the LLC, then partnership income tax returns would need to be fi led. If a partnership income tax return needs to be fi led, each member of the LLC will receive a K-1 form in order to report his or her distributive share of the net rental income or loss on his or her individual income tax return. Joseph D. Cataldo is an Estate Planning/Elder Law Attorney, Certifi ed Public Accountant, Certifi ed Financial Planner, AICPA Personal Financial Specialist and holds a Master’s Degree in Taxation. com/WakefieldRinkCitations and read the citations with links for yourself. See new school site plan pics here: tinyurl.com/ NEMTSchooSitePics This letter can be shared: tinyurl.com/Wakefi eldRinkLetter If you agree or disagree, have questions or advice please write to whyshouldwepay01880@gmail.com Karen Johnson Malden Resident

16 Publizr Home