The Community Preservation Committee decided not to support the article on the Town Meeting Warrent that would require a minimum of 5% of CPA funds be spent or put aside annually for recreation. Earlier they had decided to recommend a 10% annual cap, but they re-convened this week to discuss the ramifications of that decision.

During discussion, the committee acknowledged both the initial intent of the CPA as it was promoted and voted on by the Town of Dracut. The town had supported it as an open space program.

The committee also sees that towns around the state have been misusing CPA funds almost as a supplement to general funds to support town projects like astro-turf, refurbishing parks, and other large scale projects that were never the original intent of the act.

The committee is in a tough situation. Everyone on the committee agrees that according to the act the CPC can vote to spend CPA funds on recreation projects.

Bringing an article to town meeting, however, could cause a problem.

The article being proposed would require at least 5% be spent or put aside for recreation as I mentioned earlier. But the committee already has the ability to spend any amount up to 65% on recreation.. so this article actually could harm the CPA program in that it could force funds to be put aside that could be needed for other projects.. thus limiting the flexibility of the committee and its responsibilities.

The chairman, Bob Nicoloro, did bring up the fact that to gain public support, it would be in the best interest of the committee to place the issue before the people, but the committee decided that this form (the town warrent article) was not the right one.

Coming in late for the meeting was George Malonis, who brought up a significant topic.

In the State Senate is a bill floating around proposing allowing a number of recreational uses for CPA funds that are currently not allowed.

To sum it up, the CPA could basically be converted to another method of bypassing Proposition 2-1/2, and taking these funds and using them for general purpose projects.

I, for one, will be the first to stand up and recommend ending our participation in the CPA program if the town ever tries to accept the proposed changes to the Community Preservation Act. As it is, to aquire and protect open space (even in the form of future recreation land) I fully support. But to divert its use to fund maintenance and refurbishment of town and school properties is not what we signed up for.

I have attached a copy of the magazine article from Lawyer’s Weekly (and will forward a copy to Barbara at Citizens for Limited Taxation as well).

 

 Recreation spending is already allowed legally [2:54m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 CPC had a choice [3:21m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 CPC, what is required for this Town Meeting? [1:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download