Dan, I believe the 3% surcharge we pay now can be changed and reduced to 1% through a town meeting vote and then a ballot vote.

http://www.communitypreservation.org/enews/DOR_Allowable_Uses_Chart.pdf

http://www.communitypreservation.org/enews/CPA_Allowable_Uses_Chart.pdf

Of course, these are the legal limits. Each town decides for itself what use it wants to make of CPA funds within those limits.

…thanks Jeanne, I was looking for that information.

From the CPA website:

(b) At any time after the expiration of five years after the date on which sections 3 to 7, inclusive, have been accepted in a city or town, said sections may be revoked in the same manner as they were accepted by such city or town, but the surcharge imposed under section 3 shall remain in effect in any such city or town, with respect to unpaid taxes on past transactions and with respect to taxes due on future transactions, until all contractual obligations incurred by the city or town prior to such termination shall have been fully discharged.

From what I understand, until the debt is paid off on these projects, we cannot opt out. Maybe what we can do is lower the surcharge percentage.

With all of the new residents moving into town, myself being one, I must say I’m extremely happy at the great financial condition our town is in compared to many others in the area. Again, KUDO’s to all of the elected officials involved in that.

As for the structure of the board when the next town manager is selected, hopefully the collective knowledge and experience of the Selectmen under the gun for that decision will have them up for the task. The voters will watch the process closely I’m sure and hopefully a decision in the best interest of the tax payers of Dracut is made.

While experience is nice, first impressions of Mr. O’Laughlin don’t give me the same warm and fuzzy for him that you have. I was horrified an elected official representing me would swipe at the TV people as he did. I was glad he apologized as he clearly was out of line. As a newer resident, Mr. Zimini is more on par with my ideals and that is the mold I would look for in my future votes on Selectmen. The Chair has been entertaining in trying to control things….and he was spot on that the former selectmen with the cell phone rining the other day was out of line…and clearly doesn’t respect the office he previously held by his actions. Hopefully no other selectment are in that mold and no future town manager would be either.

I have a Comm. Preservation Fund question that maybe could be answered by a reader. Don’t the voters get to re-assess the tax situation every 5 years? I, for one, would have a hard time voting to renew if the state keeps upping my taxes as they are doing…..there is a point of pain for all of us and tough choices are going to be made. As the voters do have a chance to directly make a decision on these specific funds, I could see a voter reaction if the economic situation doesn’t change. If that occurs, would the Hosuing project be in trouble funding wise for future capital repairs or would it default back to the general town fund and then the quality town services would suffer?

As the agreement clearly isn’t final (not paid in full), yes, changes could be made and should be made if there are major issues. Hopefully, the cost of repairs being explored by the Housing Board will be low enough to justify the completion of this purchase, maybe with no changes, maybe with a slight tweaking.

If major issues arise, I would hope that all of the involved elected officials would make an assessment together. If the cost of repairs and the value of these units towards the 10% affordable housing stock is more cost effective for the town than providing services to 150 new units in town, then the elected officials should find a way to make the project work while protecting the Housing Authority from going Bankrupt over the capital repairs discovered.

I look forward to seeing this resolved soon.