News release from the Preservation Without Taxation Committee
A group of Milton citizens is pleased to announce they have formed the Preservation Without Taxation (PWT) committee in response to the CPA tax ballot question that, if passed, will create a new permanent tax on Milton property owners.
The PWT Committee, led by Bill Bennett and former Milton Treasurer/Collector Kevin Sorgi, the committee treasurer, is educating voters about the CPA, an acronym for Community Preservation Act; a tax that will appear on the November 6th ballot as Question #4.
The group is urging residents to vote No on Question #4.
Bill Bennett, one of Milton’s assessors said, “The CPA tax will be portrayed as a small annual amount to the average homeowner, but will cost each of us thousands of dollars more over the 10 to 20 years we live in our homes.”
The CPA tax if passed, will add 1.5% to every property tax bill above the first $100,000 of assessed value. Its use is limited to affordable housing development, open space purchase, parks improvements, historic preservation and conversion of historic properties for affordable housing.
We formed this committee to explain to Milton residents why the CPA proponents have overstated its benefits.
Open Space – Did you know that Milton is already 38% open space? We already have a large portion of our potentially taxable land off the tax rolls. Milton is built out with very little room for growth. Milton’s tax free land includes a college, a hospital, an internationally recognized private school with significant holdings, several other private schools and 12 houses of worship. This fact already places a heavy financial burden on the individual property owner to pay for delivery of basic services. No other town in the greater Boston area has more protected space than Milton.
Parks – For the past 6 years, our town’s budget has risen more each year than the CPA would raise each year. Every year, Town Meeting funds our Parks department. If the citizens think parks are a priority, we already have the money to build or maintain any parks we want.
Affordable Housing – Did you know that the most significant benefit of the 40(b) law accrue to the developer and not the end user? And it supersedes local zoning that is obviously so important to our town.
Historic Preservation – Why is the CPA required to maintain our firehouses when we just formed a Consolidated Facilities department to achieve greater building maintenance savings and efficiency?
Conversion of Historic Properties – Did you realize that converting private buildings to historic status would remove more tax paying properties from our roles, further increasing the burden on the rest of us? The tax money designated to historic preservation doesn’t necessarily translate to the preservation of historic buildings. One town used CPA tax money for what it called the ‘historic archiving of town records’. Cities and towns are bound by law to archive its records; the costs are covered in the annual budget.
The PWT committee believes that Milton taxpayers have been very generous, supporting construction of the Council on Aging building, 6 new schools that far exceeded original estimates and a new library as well as overrides in the millions.
Kevin Sorgi said, “If we continue to follow the town’s current budgeting approach, an operational override becomes necessary every few years to maintain basic services. I’m afraid if the CPA passes, the voters will reject an operational override which will negatively impact the schools, police, fire and other essential services.”
The Preservation Without Taxation committee welcomes and wants Milton residents to help defeat passage of Question #4 in any way they can.
For more information, please email info@preservationwithouttaxation.org and visit their website at www.preservationwithouttaxation.org.
One doesn’t have to go far from my house to find a very good example of what Tom is talking about. Many Milton residents drive by Kelly Field every day. There is a building we used to call the “Red House” directly across Brook Road from St. Mary of the Hills School. That building is just crumbling from the inside because the Park Commissioners do not have the resources to do anything except band aid maintenance. This building used to be a huge part of the park, especially in the summer when they had more youth programs in the parks. But with the emergence of sports such as youth soccer and lacrosse and field hockey, that buiding could be transformed into a center of activity and storage for youth sports groups. CPA funds could help with the restoration and utility of that asset which has no function now, and will someday just have to be torn down because it is a hazard. Passing CPA is a smart way to bring the town’s rich past into the future, to maintain the town so that values don’t go down for all of us, and address problems using other peoples money with matching funds as a bonus. The taxpayer’s representatives will have a say in every phase, so it is not a way to go wild with spending, just a smart tool that helps the town.
John Michael Shields
Former Selectman and Former Chair of the Capital Committee
I am voting a strong NO on question 4 when we go to the polls this November. As Paul Yorvino and Steve Fruzzetti point out, no matter how you spin it, this is still a tax. And what tax has EVER been repealed once it’s in place? Our skyrocketing property taxes are the means to address these types of situations, and shame on the town if they fail to use those funds appropriately. And where do you think those “magical” matching funds come from? The taxpayer – who has already paid property taxes and already paid state taxes; a CPA tax would tax us a third time! If people are passionate about the preservation of Milton, let them donate money or start a charitable organization that can make sure funds go exactly where they are needed.
We must vote NO on question 4.
First of all, it is a pleasure reading the arguments made on this page that remain at such a high level of discourse so uncommon in other online forums. I am sure that Frank’s insistence that we all use our real names helps; it is good to have a place for respectful exchange. Well done. Now to the arguments. I’ve extracted some of the key points from Tom’s message and wish to respond to them individually.
#1 The opponents have made some very specious arguments.
Good word, specious – defined as either:
1. apparently true but actually false: appearing to be true but really false
2. deceptively attractive: superficially attractive but actually of no real interest or value
I beg to differ. Our arguments are both completely true and deeply attractive with real value as I will explain below.
#2 First there is no room in our operating budget for the types of projects that would be funded by Community Preservation.
As a reminder for this audience, our FY13 budget is $91 million. In 2007 it was about $80m. But let’s eliminate for a moment the override issue. The amount that our revenue has increased every year since 2007, excluding overrides is, $1.7m. The CPA proponents propose to raise in the first year alone about $.75m. As a graduate of a fine public school system, I tested the above two numbers and proved that $1.7m is > $.75m. Thus I submit that there are sufficient revenues to pay for the projects that the CPA proponents propose. Whether they wish to spend that $1.7m on CPA-type projects or not is a separate argument.
#3 Our revenues increase yearly by about 1.8 percent.
Once one eliminates the Prop 2 overrides in 2007 and 2010, the increase in our revenues averages $1.7m which equals 3.7% annually. You may ask how this could exceed the 2.5% legal limit. Our town increases the tax rate on our property by the full 2.5% plus the amount that we raise from new growth, which is small in absolute percentage terms, but adds up over time.
#4 In most years our fixed cost increases and salary increases eat up all of that revenue increase and then some.
This point is the essence of our argument. Our town’s leaders have allocated our $1.7m annual increase primarily to paying more to our employees than for CPA-like projects. Tom has written that this decision is somehow out of our control. Yet it is completely within our control, if we should choose to exert that control.
#5 We have not put any money into any kind of an affordable plan. We have not made any major improvements to our parks outside of normal maintenance.
This point makes a stronger argument for the opponents than for the proponents. Why would we raise money for the town, when there is no plan to spend it? Perhaps there are alternate plans of which we are unaware? I have heard that some proponents recommended raising an $8m bond if the CPA is passed. This seems like just the kind of plan that will make the CPA tax override irrevocable. Put Milton in sufficient debt such that revoking the CPA tax becomes impossible without cutting into our current services.
#6 We have no plan on how to deal with our affordable housing needs in Milton. There was an affordable housing plan written in 2006.
Once again, I am disturbed that the proponents are recommending raising money to spend according to a plan that does not exist. Alternately, if a plan does exist, let’s hear that out and compare it to the other demands on our budget, and its $1.7m annual increase, and see which is more compelling.
#7 When is the last time that anyone can remember the Town spending money on open space, or historic preservation?
Unfortunately, Tom has limited “the Town” to meaning the town’s budget rather than the more expansive definition of all our citizens and their private expenditures. Three examples; The Forbes House museum has existed for decades with private donations. The Suffolk Resolves House serves as the symbol of our Historical Commission using private funds. And most recently, the Eustis estate and 100 acres of land has been purchased and preserved by Historic New England using $0 in Town of Milton funds.
Further, Tom and the prior Board of Selectmen very recently had a huge opportunity to preserve a significant amount of open space; that of the Town Farm. And yet, when presented with the choice of preserving open space or raising more money, they clearly chose to raise more money and sacrifice the open space. So when I hear the argument for the CPA is all about preserving our open space, I am skeptical because the proponent’s actions speak much louder than their words.
#8 We go to Europe and we marvel over the buildings and ruins that are hundreds or even thousands of years old. Those treasures were not preserved by accident.
I completely concede Tom’s point that the treasures in Europe are indeed marvelous. However, they were initially preserved by the wealth of the Church, by Nobles and by their Kings, none of which are present here in the United States. Most recently, they have been preserved by their States. States that we read daily are stagnating with tax rates the citizens struggle to pay, with debt that they can no longer service, with budget deficits that investors refuse to finance except at exorbitant rates and with their children’s unemployment rate floating above 25%. Some role model.
#9 The Park budget is about $400,000. 75% of that is for salaries. About $20,000 of the budget is allocated to materials for maintenance of grounds. The balance of the budget is vehicle related and utilities.
Tom knows full well that the $400,000 Parks budget is set annually from a fungible budget of $91m. Once again, if the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting decided to fund more to parks, they could do so. We just recently read in the Milton Times, that the Fire Department suddenly spent over $100,000 in above average overtime in June alone, the last month of the fiscal year. Those of us who manage budgets have all heard of the temptation to suddenly spend unused funds at the end of the fiscal year to avoid risking elimination of those funds. One wonders how many other such last month expenditures occur, unbeknownst to us, that could fund the purchase of parks, historic properties or affordable housing.
#10 There is also the matter of State matching funds. The opposition does not seem to mention that in FY 12 the State match will be 26% of the amount raised locally.
The opposition has mentioned it, both on Cable Access and in editorials. However, those funds are only available if we double down with a further tax increase.
#11 In FY 13 the match could be as much as doubled because of a $25 million infusion into the CPA trust fund by the State.
This recent development is the pernicious aspect of this act and why tax increases are never repealed. Once a tax is in place, a system and a bureaucracy grow around it. That bureaucracy seeks to defend itself. The money starts to flow. The recipients of that money become dependent on it and any threat to its flow is fiercely defended. And finally, if the bureaucracy’s and the recipient’s demands on the flow of funds exceed the available amount, they agitate for an increase of funds. This cycle never ends and the taxes never disappear. The five year interim duration of the CPA act is a complete illusion.
#12 That is certainly your prerogative. But let’s not kid ourselves that we will somehow find money in the operating budget for these items. It has not happened for the past 30 years and it in all likelihood never will.
To me, this argument is the most disappointing argument of all. Tom states that since no elected official has prioritized the money in the past, no official can ever prioritize the money in the future. How defeatist. To optimists like the CPA opponents, the past is replete with elected officials who have done what has never been done before. Margaret Thatcher revived England when it appeared hopeless. Gerhard Schroder revived Germany when it appeared hopeless. And Ronald Reagan revived the United States. Perhaps our challenge is more with our elected officials and less with the problem itself.
” The problem dear Brutus is not in the stars but in ourselves.”