[MassHistPres] CPA funding (and fuzzing?)

[Anne Forbes]

There appears to be at least one significant factual error in the Commonwealth article cited below .  It states tin the third paragraph that the Act allows a municipality to add a surcharge onto real estate transactions in the community.  In fact, the local funding comes from a surcharge on real estate taxes, or in the words of the Act,  a "surcharge on its real property levy."

Anne Forbes, Acton
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dennis De Witt 
  To: MHC MHC listserve 
  Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 6:47 AM
  Subject: [MassHistPres] CPA funding (and fuzzing?)


  Here is a story from "Commonwealth" about expanded funding for, and the evolving allowed uses of, the CPA, whose impact on historic preservation efforts throughout the state has been very important and is not fully appreciated.  (Does anyone remember that originally the lottery was the "Arts Lottery" dedicated solely to the support of arts organizations?)


  Dennis De Witt
  Brookline


  The new local aid

  The Community Preservation Act, once seen as an antidote to urban sprawl, is on the verge of becoming just another form of state aid to cities and towns.
  In its election-year budget, the Massachusetts House this week approved a significant increase in state aid to the program along with changes that give communities a lot more flexibility in how they spend the money. The likely result is that a lot more of the money will go for boilerplate municipal functions such as fixing up ball fields and parks and less will go for outside-the-box initiatives like preserving open space and restoring historic buildings.
  The Community Preservation Act, originally signed into law in 2000, is a smart-growth initiative. It allows municipalities to add a surcharge to real estate transactions in their communities and use that money, along with a match from the state, to fund historic preservation initiatives and create or preserve affordable housing, open space, or recreational areas.
  More than 140 municipalities have signed on. Carver bought a 242-acre property to preserve it as open space. Mendon used CPA funds to restore the town’s copy of the Declaration of Independence. Nantucket used $200,000 in preservation act funds to help finance affordable housing units for teachers. And Agawam spent $1.7 million on a new park.
  Over time, many cash-strapped communities sought to expand the reach of the Community Preservation Act. For example, the act permits the use of funds for the “creation and preservation of land for recreational use,” but many communities began interpreting creation and preservation broadly.
  Sudbury, for example, used CPA funds to build sidewalks along some residential streets by classifying the sidewalks as new “recreational facilities” for walking. Wayland and Acton used CPA funds to replace grass football fields with synthetic turf fields; the rationale was that synthetic fields could be used more often, even in the rain, so new recreation space was being created. Acton put in field lights with CPA funds, saying the lights effectively created new recreational space because residents could play sports at night and not just during the day. Many other towns tried to use their community preservation money to restore existing parks and sports fields.
  In 2008, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that communities could only use CPA funds to create new recreational space or to rehab existing recreational space that was purchased with CPA funds. The Legislature also amended the Community Preservation Act to prohibit the use of CPA funds for synthetic turf fields.
  But the demand by municipalities for more spending flexibility didn’t go away. The House finally acquiesced this week, passing a budget amendment that permits the use of CPA funds for the “acquisition, creation, preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration of land for recreational use.” The amendment retains the prohibition on spending on synthetic turf fields.
  The budget amendment also pumps more state money into the program. The state used to match local funds dollar for dollar using deed fees, but as more communities set up community preservation programs and the real estate market crashed, the state’s match fell from around $50 million a year to $22 million. The House amendment would augment the existing funds with an additional $25 million from any state budget surplus. Normally, surplus money flows into the state’s Rainy Day Fund.
  To address the reluctance of many cities to hike fees on real estate transactions, the House amendment also allows municipalities to satisfy a portion of their match by using revenues from hotel excise taxes, linkage fees, zoning payments, and parking fines.
  Rep. Stephen Kulik, a Democrat from Worthington who sponsored the House’s CPA amendment, said the changes should make the Community Preservation Act accessible to more communities and at the same time more useful to those communities. “It is an additional form of local aid,” Kulik said. “That’s a good way to look at the CPA.”
  BRUCE MOHL


  Top 10 recipients of state CPA funds in 2011

  Cambridge $2 million
  Lexington $885,463
  Barnstable $765,460
  Falmouth $654,185
  Newton $625,763
  Waltham $619,472
  Nantucket $486,174
  Weston $468,394
  Plymouth $442,947
  Sudbury $431,743




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  ******************************
  For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE LIST.
  MassHistPres mailing list
  MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
  http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
  ********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120427/a7eb4f76/attachment.htm>