by Frank Schroth
Next week’s election will feature a number of ballot questions. One that is likely to be as tightly contested as the Senate race is one asking voters if Milton should join the Community Preservation Act. We sat down early yesterday evening with Bill Benett and Kevin Sorgi of Preservation without Taxation, a group opposed to the CPA and also with Tom Hurley and Katie Conlon of Preserve Milton, an organization in favor of joining. The program will air on MATV tonight, tomorrow, and Sunday night at 7:30pm. And again on Monday at 6:30pm.
Myself and hundreds of others spent years trying to protect and save The Town Farm for historic preservation from the very same people that are leading the charge for this new tax on our homes. The irony is that they say they are doing this to protect our historic buildings. The Town Farm was deignated one of the top ten most endangered sites in Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Historical Society stated that this site met all of the qualifications to become a National Landmark which would have entitled it for Federal grants for rehab. All we needed was the board of selectmen and Milton Historical Society to join us in our fight, they never did! I am very skeptical on the true intentions behind this tax and what will be done with the money as I have fought the fight in Milton and the same people that are on the committee to pass this tax were the same ones that were adamantly opposed to saving the Town Farm but instead wanted to build hundreds of affordable housing units on top our history. When we were trying to save the Farm we did not need a town slush fund we just needed people in position of power to sign on. There is plenty of money out there for these ventures, adding another tax to the already over taxed people of Milton to set up a slush fund for certain groups to further an agenda is not the right thing to do. Where were they when they had the opportunity to save the Town Farm? I was there because it was the right thing to do and still,believe it is. No on any new taxes, no on 4
Mr Grogan, I couldn’t agree with more, a C.P.A. Tax is a slush fund for the appointed few ,the last thing we need is a new tax on our property to satisfy the few. Any new tax in a down economy is not good . This needs a lot more study , what’s good for the Town of Easton in my opinion is not good for Milt
On. Vote No.
Of all the arguments against the CPA, the “this is a way around Proposition 2 1/2” argument is the weakest. The core purpose of Proposition 2 1/2 is to prevent tax increases above a base without the consent of the voters. The CPA requires the consent of the voters in just the same way as Proposition 2 1/2.
A slush fund is one that has elements of secrecy or illegitimacy. A fund raised based on the majority vote of residents with expenditures approved by the Town Meeting hardly qualifies as a slush fund.
I suggest that of the 148 communities who have passed the CPA, few have the history and traditions that can benefit from preservation to the extent Milton can.
Just so we all know that the money taken for CPA funds actually has to come from somewhere and hurt the most vulnerable, here is the executive summary from a report by Harvard University;
While the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act (CPA) has generated more than
$360 million for affordable housing, open space preservation, historic preservation, and
recreation since its passage in 2000, it has resulted in the transfer of tens of millions of dollars
from residents of the state’s poorest cities and towns to the wealthiest communities in the
Commonwealth. Inadequate reporting requirements make it difficult to determine how the
money is being spent with any precision, and impossible to compare the cost of projects
funded by the Act in different communities. Partial data collected by the law’s advocates
suggest much of the revenue collected under CPA to date has been used to preserve open
space. These findings suggest that it may be time to revisit the law to consider changes that
would make it more equitable, efficient, and transparent.
For the most part, problems with CPA are the result of two key aspects of the law. First,
municipalities must adopt a local property tax surcharge to be eligible to receive matching
funds from a statewide fee on transactions filed with registries of deeds across the state.
Because affluent communities are more likely to adopt the optional tax, and because matching
funds are linked to property values, wealthy cities and towns have received most of the
revenue raised from the statewide fees. Second, while CPA requires that activities related to
affordable housing, open space protection, and historic preservation each receive at least 10
percent of CPA funds in each community, the remaining 70 percent of revenues may be spent
on any of these purposes, plus recreation.
Our analysis of various data sources suggests that between adoption of CPA by the first
communities in 2001 and the end of 2006:
• Poor urban communities were net losers:
Boston, which generated an estimated $11.4 million of about $180 million in
state CPA matching funds, did not receive any of this revenue, because its voters
turned down the optional CPA surcharge in 2001. Similarly, Worcester, Springfield,
Brockton, Lowell, Lynn, Haverhill, Framingham, and New Bedford, which together
contributed an estimated $18.88 million in CPA deed registry fees, received no
funding from the program because these cities have not held a vote on adopting the
CPA.
• Affluent communities were net winners:
Cambridge, which accounted for an estimated 1 percent of deed registry fees
collected statewide, received more than 15 percent of revenues from the state
matching fund, for a total of more than $25 million, making it the biggest “winner”
from the program. Newton, Weston, Nantucket, Westford, Duxbury, North Andover,
Bedford, Sudbury, and Barnstable, which together accounted for approximately
4.5 percent of deed registry fees, received more than 26 percent of matching funds,
totaling almost $50 million. On a per capita basis, the law has greatly benefitted
residents of small communities with high property values. Chilmark and Aquinnah,
for example, each received more than $600 per resident in state matching funds, and
residents of Nantucket and Weston received $526 and $485 per capita respectively.
• Money is flowing to the Cape and Middlesex County:
Cities and towns in Middlesex County received over $30 million more in state grants
than county residents paid in CPA deed registry fees. Barnstable County communities
received $10 million more than residents of the county paid in fees. Towns in Dukes,
Nantucket, and Plymouth Counties also received more money than the registries
in those counties collected in fees. On the other side, municipalities in Suffolk and
Worcester Counties received $18 and $22 million less than residents of those counties
paid in fees, respectively. Bristol, Essex, and Norfolk Counties each had negative net
revenue flows of at least $10 million. Remaining counties in the western part of the
state recorded smaller negative net flows of revenue.
• CPA may not be promoting creation of new affordable housing: While communities
are not required to report how they are using available funds, data collected by the
non-profit Community Preservation Coalition suggest that more than 40 percent of
funds raised to date have been spent to protect open space. This figure rises to more
than 50 percent if Cambridge, which has used the majority of its CPA revenue for
housing, is excluded from the calculation. Moreover, it is unclear that the CPA is
resulting in creation of new affordable housing. Analysis done by others suggests
that as much as 70 percent of the CPA money spent on affordable housing to date has
been used to purchase existing units.1
• Lack of transparency precludes assessment of efficiency: Due to discrepancies in the
data on spending of CPA funds, it is not possible to compare the cost of affordable
housing creation, open space protection and historic preservation among CPA
communities and between communities that have adopted CPA and those that have
not. However, because adoption of CPA and generation of revenue under the Act are
correlated with wealth as measured by property values, it seems likely that projects
funded by CPA are more expensive than a statewide average cost of similar projects.
The Town of Weston, for example, spent more than $120,000 per acre when it used
$3.25 million in CPA funds to buy 27.5 acres of land in 2002.
These findings suggest that it may be time to revisit the Community Preservation Act,
particularly the state matching fund program. We recommend that state officials consider
amending the legislation to make CPA funding more equitable, to develop more transparent
mechanisms to allow assessment of how revenues are spent, and accountability systems
that will give them tools to ensure that state funds are used efficiently and in accordance with
state goals.
The rest of this paper explores these findings in more detail. Section I reviews the history
and structure of the CPA. Section II examines which communities have adopted local CPA
surcharges on property taxes. Sections III and IV review contributions to and distribution of
revenues from the state’s CPA trust fund. Section V examines data on the uses of CPA funds.
Section VI summarizes findings and offers suggestions on how policymakers might address
some of the issues raised in this study.
Passage of question 4 will give Milton the flexibility and resources it needs to manage development proactively rather than reactively, as we’ve been doing for too many years. There is no room in the Town’s annual operating budget to address needs relating to open space, historic preservation, housing and improvements to athletic fields. Many other communities are in the same boat because of Prop. 2 1/2. That is why the State legislature enacted the Community Preservation Act in 2000 and authorized State matching funds. 148 other towns and cities have adopted CPA and receive matching funds (which this year totaled 26% and next year will total 40% or more – a great return on a town’s investment). Milton has lost out on State matching funds for the past 12 years. The State match is funded by recording fees paid by homeowners on real estate transactions. Thus, Milton residents have contributed to the State matching fund for years but received no benefit from it.
There is some misinformation in a couple of prior posts that needs to be corrected.
The Town Farm situation was unique because the Selectmen were acting as trustees and had a fiduciary obligation to obtain the highest value for the benefit of the Gov. Stoughton trust. But, if CPA funds had been available, the Town may well have had some options for at least a portion of the Town Farm property.
CPA funds are not a “slush fund for the appointed few”. If question 4 passes, then a 5 to 9 member committee would be appointed to review requests from town departments and other parties and make its own request and recommendation for funding to the Warrant Committee and Town Meeting. CPA funds would be appropriated only by a vote of Town Meeting. The CPA committee would submit an annual report just as other boards do. So, the entire process, including the expenditure of CPA funds, would be transparent and democratic.
Many of Milton’s historic structures, including its 3 fire stations, need substantial renovation and repair. CPA funds could be used not only for the fire stations but also for future capital projects at some of the schools and the library. And the Town could use CPA funds to acquire small parcels of land to preserve its character, which no doubt helped put us at #2 on Money Magazine’s list of the best towns in which to live. CPA funds could also be put to work rehabilitating and upgrading our playgrounds and parks. The Park Department’s budget is insufficient to make needed repairs at Andrews Field, Kelly Field (including restoring the “red house”, a long overdue project) and the other playgrounds. And Milton needs to make greater progress on affordable housing so as to be able to fend off potential 40B projects; CPA can go a long way to help.
Yes, the CPA is a 1.5% surcharge on our real estate taxes. The average annual surcharge would be $86. But exemptions are available for seniors and low-to-moderate income families. And everyone would have an exemption for the first $100,000 of a home’s assessed value.
Our Town wouldn’t be what it is today if our forefathers (and mothers) hadn’t acted at various times over the past 350 years to preserve open space and historic structures. In recent decades, Proposition 2 1/2 has limited our ability to do what needs to be done for Milton’s present and future. The CPA is a tool that we should take advantage of, as 148 other communities have done, to address some longstanding needs. If we don’t, we’re leaving State money on the table.
The report Mr. Grogan is referring to can be found here.
Joseph Grogan quotes, “Boston, which generated an estimated $11.4 million of about $180 million in
state CPA matching funds, did not receive any of this revenue, because its voters
turned down the optional CPA surcharge in 2001.”
That’s a pretty good argument that the voters in Boston and other communities (like Milton) that have not yet adopted the CPA should do so.
Vote Yes on 4.
The 2007 report that Mr. Grogan cites actually makes the case for voting YES on question 4. Milton real estate transactions have helped fund the State match for the past 12 years but no such money has been paid to Milton because we haven’t adopted the CPA. Funds generated by Milton homeowners have gone to other towns. The proponents of adopting CPA in Milton are trying to capture some of these matching funds for Milton. The State legislature added $25 million to the matching fund this year, signaling its continued support of the CPA program.
The transparency issue described in this report may or may not still be true. (The report is 5 years old, after all.) Regardless, the transparency issue cited in the report relates to an apparent difficulty in comparing data among towns and cities. It does NOT address transparency of information within a particular community. If question 4 passes, a CPA Committee would be appointed and be subjected to the same open meeting law and reporting requirements that apply to other Milton committees and boards. And only Town Meeting could appropriate CPA funds.
Again, the notion that CPA will “hurt the most vulnerable” is wrong. There are full exemptions from the CPA surcharge for Milton seniors and families who meet certain income levels. And there is a $100,0000 exemption for all of us. (The 2007 report compares “poor” communities that don’t receive any benefit from the State matching fund (into which their residents paid) because they did not adopt the CPA and “affluent” communities that received more than their residents paid into the fund.)