HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-08-09 Community Preservation Act Study Committee MinutesRecord of the Meeting
Community Preservation Act Study Committee
August 9, 2001 SEE 26 ~ 3a 32
This meeting was for the purpose of taking input from the public. A quorum was not
met.
Present: Chair Paul Dustin, Dick Howard, Kim Honetschlager, Tim Kelley
Also present: Amy Senier, Gail Wood, Board of Selectmen, Karen Flammia and John
Hixson from the Reading Housing Authority, Virginia Adams from the Historical
Commission, Bill Brown, Tom Ryan, Gerry MacDonald and, arriving late, Brook
Chipman, Town Meeting member.
Paul opened the meeting at 7:40 PM. He introduced committee members and then gave a
20 minute presentation with overhead slides, similar to his presentation to the Board of
Selectmen in July. The other committee members each made brief statements elaborating
on Paul's presentation, following which Paul opened the meeting up to the public.
Bill Brown quoted Brad Jones' office saying that the CPA surcharge in not deductible on
federal taxes. He stated his opposition to the CPA saying that he shouldn't be taxed if he
then can't afford to live in town. In response to a question, he stated that he feels there is
a need for more funds in the areas that the CPA supports, but that Prop. 2 is already
available to address those needs.
Tom Ryan handed out a two-page letter to the committee in opposition to the CPA signed
by himself, Bill Brown and Gerald MacDonald. He then summarized the letter that states
that they have two reasons to oppose the CPA: 1) it is a tax increase and 2) Reading faces
a financial crisis. He stated that the average homeowner's current tax bill is upwards of
$10 per day.
Gerry MacDonald criticized the committee for discussing only the "pros" and not the
"cons" of the CPA. Paul stated that that was because we have been primarily gathering
data to this point. He urged the public to come to our August 23rd meeting and to send
written comments to Town Hall.
Brook Chipman stated that the town needs to address current financial issues, in
particular school funding, before it addresses the CPA. He expressed openness to
learning more, but an unease with the CPA as a work-around Prop. 21/2. Committee
members discussed with Mr. Chipman whether the CPA should be brought up at Town
Meeting just to give it a hearing.
Virginian Adams urged people to consider the benefits of the CPA including economic
revitalization of downtown with the restoration of historic buildings. She cautioned that
community character is not recoverable and that the loss of open space and historic assets
results in a loss of community identity.
Karen Flammia spoke of the current obstacles to providing affordable housing, She said
it is "short-term thinking" if we do not pass the CPA. She stated that less than 5% of
Reading's housing stock is affordable, but that 25% of households in Reading are low
income.
Paul wrapped up the meeting at 8:55 PM.
Kim Honetschlager
Acting Secretary
,august 5, 2001
TG: The Community Preservation. Act (CPA) Ad Hoc Study Committee
L f"
We the undersigned are opposed to the Town of Reading adopting a CPA fund. We urge the MASS.
curnmittee when it makes its, report to the Board of Selectmen to NOT recommend placing a I r1- ' 1 N ° article or, the warrant for tail Town Meeting to adopt the CPA fund. 2001 SEP 2b P 4: 53
Ouf reasons are twofold, or, rather, two points to consider:
A: The surcharge allowed under the CPA is a tax increase.
Within the last eighteen months the voters of Reading. have expressed their concerns regarding
taxes. In the spring of 2000 they voted NO 60% -40% against an override.
In November 2000 they voted. 60%-+40% YES to decrease state income taxes.
In the spring of 2001 they voted Na 54%-46% against an override.
The message should be clear: NO to additional taxes, YES. to reduced taxes.
Incidentally, since the surcharge must appear an the tax bill as a separate entity, it may NOT be
deductible on federal tax returns.
Sesid , there are other mechanisms by which we may pLwchaise open space, affordable
housing, historical preservation projects: they are the capital plan, debt exclusions, capital outlay
expercliture exclusions, all of whwA are to x-dectuc tale.
An interesting contradiction seems to be part of the CPA. Exemptions for the first $100,000 of
valuation, eldedyr, low and moderate it e, if we want to give the taxpayers a tweak with these
exer.aptions, why give thern a surcharge at all?
B. The financial crises facing Reading.
CurrerAly there is a shortfall of anywhere from $400,05)0 to $SW,000 in the budget, This shortfall
is NOT due to the override defeat, but rather to the process of budgeting with money we did not
have (relying on state monies.)
In the future we have 1 wonder about the landfill. If the current proposal fails, we are faced with
a figure of $4,000,000 to cap it.
Addison-Wesley sale? Who knows?
The School Building Committee wants. $500,5100 to move ahead. with. the high sch aat Project,
which could cost the town anywhere frorn $60,000,000 to $80,000,000, with the uncertainty of
how rnueh reimbursement we would get..
Updating the water plant and related costs will be in the area of $18,000,000 to $21,000,000.
Further we have the additional. costs for the new elementary schoot: sidewalks, lighting, e1c.
it is possible that the town of Reading could be faced with spending over $100,000,000 for the
above mentioned items in the next. few years..
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO ASK THE CITIZENS TO RAISE THEIR TAXES.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Timetable for CPA acceptance in Reading, 2001 IF accepted.
September--BOO opts to place article on warrant for Subsequerd-Town Meeting
November--Town Meeting votes to place CIA question on ballot in spring of 2002
Voter's accept CPA in. spring 2002 election
CPA goes into effect for FY 2003 starting July 1, 2002
Eadiest Town Meeting may appropriate funds from the CP Fund is annual Town Meeting of 2003
(unless there is a special Town Meeting before that).
The earliest Reading may qualify for state snatching funds is October 15, 2003, for FY 2003
_ ending June 30, 2003
(if there is any second. rowed distribution for communities charging 3%, then a certain formula is
applied. Currently Reading is in the 9th Decile, based on the equalized valuation per capita,
which snits Reading #113 in the state; and population, which ranks Reading #76 in the state.
The two figures are added together and divided by two to get a rave score, then applied to the
tease figure for reimbursement. The 9th decile means that Reading would qualify for, Wy 60% of
the base figure for equity distribution)
Again-
THIS IS NOT THE. TIME TO ASIA THE CITIZENS TO NOISE THEIR TAXES
V