“An Act to Sustain Community Preservation” filed on Beacon Hill

The new legislative session began last week, and state Senator Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Newton) has re-filed CPA legislation that seeks to stabilize the statewide CPA Trust Fund and make other improvements to the Act. This time around, Representative Stephen Kulik (D-Worthington) has signed on as lead sponsor in the House. For more information, read the bill summary and text of the legislation.

The proposed changes are:

• Increase minimum state match to 75%
• Allow local funds to come from other sources than real estate tax surcharges. Meaning that after a 1% surcharge, the remaining local contribution (up to 2%) could come from other revenue sources.
• Allow for CPA monies to be spent on existing recreational facilities.

These are great changes – which strenghthens my belief that futher changes to the CPA will be improvements not the legislative equivalent of pulling the rug out from us.

The CPC is asking that you contact your state reps and senator:
Rep.ThomasCalter@Hou.State.MA.US
Rep.StephenCanessa@Hou.State.MA.US
Rep.WilliamStraus@Hou.State.MA.US
Marc.Pacheco@state.ma.us

Text of the proposed changes can be seen here

A description of how this works is available. Basically the town sends out information outlining exemption income eligibility and the resident fills out a standard abatement form that is available from the DOR.

Dear Mr. Belanger,

I stumbled across the Middleboro CPA webpage by accident, and am interested in learning about what the CPA is doing. I grew up in Middleboro (I am a member of the MHS class of ’97), and now live and work in Washington, D.C. I work for a small nonprofit historic preservation organization (The Trust for Architectural Easements – www.architecturaltrust.org) that manages over 800 historic preservation easements in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and Illinois. Historic preservation easements preserve historic architecture forever; similarly, land and open-space easements preserve land and open space in perpetuity.

I was wondering if the idea of using historic preservation and open-space easement donations to protect Middleboro’s open land and historic sites has been considered – either instead of, or in addition to, the proposed property tax increase. Easement donations are voluntary, and are made by property owners in the form of preservation restriction agreements recorded against their properties. Property owners agree to restrict their properties from further development, and are eligible to receive federal tax deductions based on the appraised value of the restricted property. The restrictions are permanent, and run with the land in perpetuity; future owners of restricted property must abide by the restrictions.

For a building to be protected by a historic preservation easement, it must be located in a National Register Historic District, or be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The Middleborough Center Historic District is in a National Register Historic District, and therefore, many of its buildings are eligible for protection by historic preservation easements through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program. And, Middleboro’s buildings individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places (the Peter Pierce Store [now, I believe the police station], the Tom Thumb House, and the U. S. Post Office Building) are similarly eligible. (The C. P. Washburn Grain Mill had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places – and is, in fact, still listed on the Register; had it been protected by a historic preservation easement, it could not have been torn down.) Other historic buildings in Middleboro located outside of the historic district might be added to the National Register through a nomination process.

I’d be more than happy to discuss the historic preservation program with you over the phone if you think that there might be an interest in the program by historic and open-space property owners. I don’t like to think about the over-development of Middleboro’s open space, or of the loss of historic buildings that Middleboro is facing. Please let me know if there is anything that I can do to help you with your cause.

Best wishes,

Laura Thornton

888-831-2107 ext. 12

lthornton@architecturaltrust.org>lthornton[at]architecturaltrust.org

Look at the numbers. Imagine a theoretical $200K project to restore some historic building. Further imagine that we fund the project with CPA money and this historic grant and assuma a 50% CPA match.

Total cost: $200K
Historic matching: $100K
Middleboro contribution: $67K
CPA matching funds: $33K

End result – we get $200K worth of historic preservation for $67K. That’s nearly a 300% return.

Now let’s get back to reality. Without CPA, most likely we will never spend any money on this historic project, we will not receive the matching CPA funds, and we won’t get any money from this historic grant project.

If you’re not in, you can’t win. If we don’t adopt CPA … we’re not in.

Here is a quote from the Massachusetts Preservation Projects fund web page.

---

Secretary of the Commonwealth William Francis Galvin and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) are pleased to announce Round 15 of the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant program. The MHC is now accepting applications for Round 15 grants. It is anticipated that funding for Round 15 will be in the range of the previous two grant rounds, Rounds 13 and 14, which were funded at $750,000 and $800,000, respectively.

The Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund (MPPF) is a state-funded 50% reimbursable matching grant program established in 1984 to support the preservation of properties, landscapes, and sites (cultural resources) listed in the State Register of Historic Places. Applicants must be a municipality or nonprofit organization. Historic cultural resources in public and nonprofit ownership and use frequently suffer from deferred maintenance, incompatible use, or are threatened by demolition. These important resources represent a significant portion of the Commonwealth’s heritage. By providing assistance to historic cultural resources owned by nonprofit or municipal entities, the Massachusetts Historical Commission hopes to ensure their continued use and integrity. The program is administered in accordance with 950 CMR 73.00.

---

One person showed up to talk against CPA – which is pretty much covered in this article.

Volunteers are asked to contact me with specific commitments for gathering petition signatures.

Now that the holidays are over, Community Preservation Act supporters are planning to gear up for an effort to collect the signatures of about 900 local residents, enough to find out whether voters at the April town election will be willing to pay more in local property taxes for open space and historic preservation as well as the creation of affordable housin

Mr. Cook’s recent letter seems to have misunderstood the issue of CPA.

To include a laundry list of budgetary grievances with the Community Preservation Act is disingenuous and should be treated separately. It’s much like comparing apples and oranges and confuses the issue.

Under Prop. 2 1/2, the tax levy increases by a required amount annually, unless voters approve an override. Your real estate taxes will increase by statute, except for the decrease reflected by the override for the Nichols Middle School. The failure of the Town to abide by the statutory requirement risks reduction in state aid. (There are low income abatements and real estate tax deferrals available.)

Regarding the Trash Fee, it might be suggested that you contact the Board of Selectmen and request that the issue be re-visited as it was promised when initially passed. This is an issue that requires more space to address, for fear of causing widespread slumber, I’ll decline beyond saying that we need a public discussion of the surrounding issues and not pot shots, unrelated to CPA.

Middleboro residents are already paying the matching portion of the CPA funds through the Registry of Deeds. What is not claimed by Middleboro is distributed to other municipalities participating in the CPA program.

When affluent communities rushed to approve and implement the CPA program, shouldn’t we question their reasons for doing so? They recognize that it is a sensible way to plan for the future and the match can’t be gained by even the most gifted investor. The match is, after all, up to 100%. This is not a “Noble” endeavor as Mr. Cook would label it, but rather planning for the future and preparing the preserve the reasons many of us moved to Middleboro.

Mr. Cook raised the issue of the contracts that were approved at the most recent Special Town Meeting. Since Mr. Cook’s previous objections at Town Meeting are memorable, I might be mistaken, but I don’t remember Mr. Cook rising to object at that public meeting. The FinCom received the information without adequate time to review and respond with a recommendation. Since the Board of Selectmen scheduled the date for the Speciall Town Meeting, that might be an issue to address with them as well. Or perhaps, as others have suggested, it’s time for a Charter change that mandates adequate time to review ALL articles, without exception.

Mr. Cook raised the issue of the sorely needed Police Station. Few residents would disagree, but barring a gross miscalculation of the financial officials within Town Government, the Town can’t pay cash for the structure. That means, of course, the Town needs to borrow the funds.

The last several purchases of property that Town Meeting Voters approved was accomplished by BONDING – that is by borrowing money.

If we approve borrowing for land purchases that we determine make sense for the future of the Town, aren’t we, in essence, already paying a ‘fee’ for the land purchase and shortchanging other needs? Doesn’t it make sense to establish a small annual ‘kitty’ that is available when the need arises that will assure that we aren’t forced to borrow each time? And what amount have we lost by our failure to approve CPA at its initial presentation? How many millions would it have been? Surely it would have funded the last several purchases, preventing borrowing.

Voters should be reminded of the purchase of the Parks Property that was in the process for a long number of years. It is among the largest land preservations the Town has embarked upon, involved others and costs the Town a nominal amount. The purchase was only finalized shortly before Mr. Parks’ passing and fruition was only because of Mr. Parks’ dedication to preserving the land.

As families move on, members pass away, economic pressures mount, large parcels will be offered for sale. Shall we pass on to the next generation “We should have saved that parcel”? Or shall we elect to invest less than a Dunkin’ Donuts’ coffee each week to the next generation that will recognize the importance we placed on the future?

A review of municipalities that have adopted CPA indicates grant money those municipalities have applied for and received as a consequence of adopting the CPA statute. Middleboro continues to miss out on grant funding available for targeted uses because of our narrow view, much as we missed the potential of grant funding for a new ladder truck as one of the candidates for Fire Chief indicated.

Let’s reserve discussion of CPA to only those issues pertaining to CPA and not create a grab bag of grievances. It’s long beyond time to prepare for the century we live in, with an eye on the future.

- Jessie Powell

The City Council kept asking, three times since 2003, for a legal opinion on whether Peabody could use Community Preservation Act money to pay for the dredging of Crystal Lake and Elginwood Pond. After two “nos,” the most recent one coming in 2005, City Solicitor John Christopher wrote in a letter to the council last month that CPA money could be used for dredging.

“The dredging of these waters to reverse the negative impact of eutrophication and sedimentation fall(s) within the CPA’s intent to preserve natural resources and prevent harm or destruction to natural resources, and therefore use of CPA funds for dredging is appropriate,” Christopher wrote.

The meeting was part informational and part organizational.  We covered the information in this CPA summary and took many questions. One person raised questions about CPA based on a recent study.

It was decided to try for a 2% adoption which translates out to 92 cents a week for the average Middleboro home.
Action Items

1. Gather up your email addresses, phone numbers and other contact information and start advocating for CPA
2. Download the petition and signup sheet and start gathering signatures
   http://www.nemasket.net/CPA/CPA-FinalPetition.pdf
   http://www.nemasket.net/CPA/CPA-signup.pdf
   Please make sure that only registered voters sign the petition, signatures are legible and include the address where the voter is currently registered. The signup sheet will be used to identify volunteers to help with the effort.

Afterwards I went to the Historical Commission. One member is dead set against it and will actively work against passage. Four were in favor. One was leaning in favor with strings, and three were absent.

Beginning with a meeting that is scheduled for 6:30-8 p.m. on Tuesday, Dec. 16 in the lower meeting room at the Middleboro Public Library, Mr. Belanger and other local residents who support his goals hope to launch a grassroots effort to attain passage of the Community Preservation Act (CPA). Prominent supporters so far include Chairman of Selectmen Adam Bond, who spoke in favor of the project at Monday night’s selectmen’s meeting, Conservation Agent Tricia Cassady, Finance Committee member Steven McKinnon and local resident William Marzelli. Mr. Belanger hopes to build on that support and enlist a crew of volunteers whose first task would be to obtain the signatures necessary to get the CPA question on the April ballot.