Separate ballot-question groups are spending online-advertising dollars to promote their sharply diverging views about the Community Preservation Act, so voters should study the websites of each to assess the messages.
KEEPING WHAT‘S OURS: Numbers big and smaller Part 2
Respected leaders on both sides draw different meaning about how the Nov. 4 ballot question would affect Arlington’s future. Consider finances.
Charlie Foskett, vice chair of the town Finance Committee, says the act is a Ponzi scheme that creates a “slush fund.” Backing it would threaten support for the down-the-road override vote for rebuilding Arlington High School.
Joe Curro, vice chair of selectmen, says that those who believe the act is “murky” about how funds are allotted “should recognize that the commitment to fiscal transparency and cooperative decision-making in Arlington is ingrained.”His lengthy statement also addresses the fear that adoption would endanger a high school rebuild.
Such fears “echo the types of concerns that were raised by some in neighboring Lexington when the Community Preservation Act was adopted there in 2005,” he writes. “And yet, when a potential scaling back of the program was discussed in 2011, that town’s Capital Expenditures Committee reported to Town Meeting: ‘With 20:20 hindsight, the present committee, 4 of the 5 members still being the same as 6 years ago, will be the first to admit that we were wrong.'”
2003 effort failed
Supporters here might ask: “What took us so long?” An initial attempt to promote the law in Arlington failed at Town Meeting in 2003. A renewed effort has had to wait for overrides in 2005 and 2011.
There’s another reason: In any political season, measures seeking to raises taxes are historically difficult to pass.
Those opposed know that and are calling the proposed surcharge a tax. The paperwork filed in the clerk’s office by two town ballot-question committees shows that the one representing the opposition is named the Committee to Vote No CPA Tax.
The wording of the law itself as well as the Community Preservation Coalition, which pushed for passage of the law in 1990s under Republican governors, calls the money a “surcharge,” not a tax: “Community preservation monies are raised locally through the imposition of a surcharge of not more than 3% of the tax levy against real property …”
Whether termed a tax or a surcharge, the Arlington ballot question calls for an amount of 1.5 percent. The law permits as much as 3 percent and as little as an amount above 0 percent.
Answers on costs depends on viewpoint
So what would that 1.5 percent cost you? The answer depends on how you frame the issue.
The yes group focuses on the individual. It has a calculator that lets you figure out your own cost. See it here >>
Using the example on its site — household income ($94,100), persons in family (4), home valuation ($500,000) — the estimated annual surcharge is $82.74.
Note that the first $100,000 of assessed value will be exempted for all properties. Low-income homeowners and low- and moderate-income seniors would be exempt. Example: Given the numbers above, if you are 60 or older, you would pay no surcharge.
The surcharge would raise about $1.1 million annually, the Yes site says. Add to this local contribution a partial match by the state Trust Fund. That has varied from year to year — from a high of 100 percent to a low of just under 30 percent.
Last year’s match was more than 50 percent and would have provided an additional $570,000 to Arlington’s local fund, numbers provided on the Yes website say.
These numbers could not be independently confirmed, but you can see what preservation-act amounts for all participating communities at this state site >>
Opposition looks at totals
The Arlington group opposing the Community Preservation Act responds on its website to the question of costs by looking at total dollars. The text is here >>
That mirrors information presented by J. Michael Ruderman, a Precinct 9 Town Meeting member, in an Oct. 4 post to the Arlington Email List. He opposes the town’s adopting the act because, he says, it will cost $8 million in new taxes.
Asked how he arrived at that figure, Ruderman wrote: “Estimating the effect of the 1.5% surcharge on the present town tax rate, rising itself a minimum of 2.5% annually, times the total town valuation, as it has historically increased over time, times 5 years.”
Describing the 1.5 percent on top of the property tax, the No site says:
“The Town Manager’s financial Plan calls for a budget of $107,318,687 in Fiscal Year 2016. After abatements, the 1.5% surcharge that year would amount to $1,294,955!”
Abatement specfics?
Town Manager Adam Chapdelaine confirmed that the two numbers cited above are accurate, but he declined to comment on what “abatements” would amount to or how they would be calculated. (The word may refer to “exemptions” allowed under the preservation act, which uses this term.)
Foskett has been asked to comment twice about how exemptions were calculated, but he has not responded.
The No site says that with $1.29 million, Arlington could afford to pay 22 more police officers and firefighters or 23 more teachers or 27 more engineers and maintenance workers.
Asked whether these estimated personnel numbers are accurate, Chapdelaine wrote Oct. 14: “As for the question regarding positions, it all depends on whether or not you include benefits in your calculation. I would need to see the assumptions that they are using before I could intelligently opine on the subject.”
Further, preservation-act funds would not be used to pay for new town and school employees.
What act aims to do
In general, here is what the Community Preservation Act does do — it aims to help communities preserve open space and history, create affordable housing and develop outdoor recreation. Following adoption statewide 14 years ago, 155 communities have signed on. None has withdrawn from the program.
Ruderman’s estimate of $8 million seems to be peanuts in the light of Foskett’s His statement to the School Committee says, in part:
“The CPA tax is a massive slush fund, with no identified line-item purpose, serving third parties — not Arlington’s Community Safety, Education, Public Works and Social Services. Its alleged reimbursement is an under-funded, doomed Ponzi scheme that has woefully missed its targets for the past six years.
“The minimum CPA tax cost to taxpayers is $8 million diverted to the slush fund. Over the 30-year bonding period for a new Arlington high school, this diversion is $88 million ….”
The numbers are truly frightening, but they are couched in inflammatory language — “slush fund” and Ponzi scheme.” They need context.
Corruption?
Both words suggest corruption, and surely an act that benefits 155 communities enjoy is not corrupt. Further, the scheme developed in 1920 by Charles Ponzi of Boston is similar to the Community Preservation Act only in its general outline.
Fiscal transparency inoculates any community against corruption, and so Curro writes in his statement defending a yes vote:
“Executed well, this process — and its associated checks and balances — can help to supplement the town’s reserves by funding projects in the capital plan pipeline with community preservation funds, freeing up money that can be applied to our fiscal stability reserve fund. (See pages 18-21 of the 2014 report of the Board of Selectmen to Town Meeting for related preliminary analysis.)
Transparency is provided on the revenue side, too, he writes. The act’s “surcharge is broken out on its own line item, so that taxpayers know exactly how much they are paying from year to year.”
The next part of this series will address the question: What specific projects in Arlington could the act aid?
Part 1: Differing viewpoints among officials roil Community Preservation Act discussion
Poll: How will you vote?
Vote-no committee | Supporters
Vote-yes committee | Supporters
This story was published Friday, Oct. 17, 2014.
If you want comment on issues related to the Community Preservation Act, or this story, you may do so at the comment link below this blog entry >>
