League of Women Voters® of Newton

LWVN Observer Report

Community Preservation Committee, Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2008

Reported by: Andreae Downs

Members present:  Nancy Grissom, Walter Bernheimer, Dan Green, Tom Turner, Joyce Moss, Judy Jacobson most were there by 7:10 pm (meeting started at 7), adjourned at 9 pm.

Members absent: Ken Kimmell, Stephen Fateaux, Charles McMillan

Other officials present: Ald. Lisle Baker, Jeffrey Sachs (former CPC member), Stuart Saginor, executive director of the CP Coalition (www.communitypreservation.org). Also Myra Tattenbaum.

Main points on agenda and action taken:

  1. New business: Baker let members know that the conservation easement behind Mishkan Tefila (300 Hammond Pond Parkway), which is surrounded by city and MDC land, may come up for sale—unless it has already been made permanent (in which case no funds would be needed to secure it). He brought maps and discussed the sale of an abutting lot that became a single family home despite his efforts to get it sold as conservation land (on Warren St.). The temple is in financial difficulty (pre-Madoff!) and is also looking at expanding its parking lot for further MASSCO rental. The entire parcel is 23 acres and assessed at $15.5 million. There is a pond nearby (Bare Pond, since bathing suits were optional?). Green asked about adverse possession.
  2. Saginor spoke about CPA statewide, what the Coalition has been doing, and upcoming projects. There are now 140 communities, or 40% of municipalities that have CPA. On Nov. 4, 2008, 7 of the 7 communities voting on the CPA adopted it: includes Quincy, Gloucester, and West Springfield. Moss asked about the effect of the Rappaport institute report. Saginor said it had a short term effect on the Legislature, but that as folks looked closer at the report, they realized its flaws—the false premise, the holes in the research. Future communities that may vote on CPA are Lynnfield and possibly Taunton. The Coalition is interested in more communities, and more cities, signing on to increase legislative clout.

The bulk of the funds spent so far—over $12 billion—have been on housing, but if Cambridge is subtracted, then it’s Open Space. The largest number of projects has been in historic preservation. Challenges the Coalition is facing include defending the trust fund from raids, declining revenue from the $20 deeds fee, making the CPA more attractive to cities and recreation if it can’t be “maintenance.”

The CPA fund is now at the point where it can pay out only what it gets in—there is no cushion and not a lot of real estate transactions. This year the payout will be about 68%, next year 35% (estimated)—it may even be lower. (BTW, he seemed to believe that housing cannot be rehabbed or restored unless it was acquired with CPA $)

THE CREEM BILL (HB4820) is crafted to attract cities without hurting current CPA communities. It increases the trust fund to guarantee a 75% match by increasing the deeds fee, indexing it to what would make a 75% match. Currently that would be about $39. It would also allow cities to use other municipal funds beyond the first 1% (mandatory) that would only be used for CPA purposes to count as CPA funds—and increase the state match proportionally. Quincy is interested in this, as it already has a hotel tax dedicated for open space and housing. Another option would be inclusionary zoning/ linkage payments, a new meals tax, but for Newton to take advantage of this, it would have to re-vote the CPA.  Currently, all major cities in the eastern part of the state (even those without CPA) are for the bill.

The bill would also loosen recreation language to allow rehabilitation and restoration. Cities, with little open space, would be able to use more of the CPA on their current parks. Saginor thinks that 130 of the 140 CPA communities want this. Artificial Turf could not be funded with CPA. Concord clear-cut woods to make a field (very unpopular) near Walden Pond, because they couldn’t use CPA funds to rehab a field, so they created a new one. Further, like in Newton, many community members ask why they should spend CPA funds on new fields when the municipality is doing such a poor job maintaining the ones they already have.

Bernheimer warned that raising the deeds fee might open the trust fund up to further raids.
Grissom asked about loosening the recreation language alone.

Saginor said that the coalition didn’t want to open recreation up without extra funds, as they worried that municipalities would raid CPA for field maintenance.

The committee voted to write a letter and to visit Creem (with Sachs) to lobby for extra deed $ for the CPA be included in the emergency FY 2010 municipal relief bill, which will be filed in early Jan. Creem is on the committee.

Moss worried that changing the recreation language will make CPA look like a backdoor tax, rather than a fund for special projects. Saginor said this is more of a problem in cities than in towns with town meetings.  He sees CPA as a bit of both—the CPCs had to walk a line, since CPA spending often costs municipal budgets—“You don’t want to turn your backs on a city building’s needs or a National Historic building’s needs—consider that both are the goal”

  1. Sachs mentioned a Keene award, which gives funds ($3,500 for large communities) to CPA municipalities with fabulous CPA projects. The first round is due Jan. 31. The committee agreed to investigate & apply.
  2. The Lexington Housing Partnership has studied the Homebuyer Assistance programs, some of which use CPA funds