Date: April 4, 2012 10:10:07 AM EDT
Subject: Ballfields and the CPA
All - The attached file is a letter that appeared in the Southbridge Evening News. It calls on us, as parents who have kids in youth sports in Sturbridge. Whether your child plays soccer, baseball, softball, football, LAX or any other sport in town, you know that fields in Sturbridge are in short supply. On April 9th, at the town election, question 4 on the ballot asks you to vote yes or no to revoke the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in Sturbridge.
CPA funds will be one of the key funding sources used to build more athletic fields Sturbridge. If the CPA is revoked, all of the funds to build athletic fields will come directly out of our tax dollars. We ask you to look at the facts and Vote No on question 4. Your Vote counts. We lost the last town meeting vote to secure the Shepard Parcel by 10 votes!
The CPA is a state program where, if Sturbridge puts aside 3% of the local real estate taxes, the state will provide matching funds up to 100%. Since 2001, we've received $2,291,510 from the state. The only catch is that these funds have to be used for Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing or Recreation.
CPA funds can be used to purchase land and then design and build the badly needed athletic fields in Sturbridge. If Sturbridge revokes the CPA, the matching funds will just go to one of the 147 towns taking advantage of the CPA in Massachusetts, and the taxpayers will foot the entire bill for new fields. If you want to learn more about the Sturbridge CPA, you can find detailed information atwww.sturbridgecpa.com. If you want to learn more about The non-profit committee called Support Sturbridge CPA, Like them on Facebook to show your support! Thank You, JZ Jeff Zahr President Sturbridge Little League (617) 780 6808
RESPONSE
What is stated above is not necessarily all true. As a matter of fact, I believe much of it is misleading. Revoking the CPA is not about ball fields. It is about debt and spending. We already owe $4.3 million (give or take a hundred thousand or so)
"CPA funds will be one of the key funding sources used to build more athletic fields Sturbridge. If the CPA is revoked, all of the funds to build athletic fields will come directly out of our tax dollars."
Not true. There is nothing in writing nor any evidence to guarantee that CPA funds will be used for ball fields. Funding from CPA funds can only made by way of voters at town meeting. That vote could happen with or without the CPA. First of all, any monies received from the state in CPA funds MUST be split by percentages three ways; 1) open space (this is where passive and active recreation come in) I believe this portion is 10% of total funding 2) Historical - 10%, I believe and 3) Affordable Housing - 10%. 70% can be split amongst any of the three areas. This money is placed in an "undesignated" fund. There are other ways to fund ball fields. Let me ask you this . . . wouldn't it be cheaper to see if we could maybe get some donated land? Raise money? Come up with a plan that includes the community rather than the taxpayer? I am more than willing to help with this initiative . . . and put my money where my mouth is!
"The CPA is a state program where, if Sturbridge puts aside 3% of the local real estate taxes, the state will provide matching funds up to 100%."
Somewhat true. The state funds from fees collected at various Registries of Deeds. So when you purchase a home (deed recording fee, mortgage recording fee, CML recording fee), refinance a home (mortgage recording fee and mortgage discharge fee, maybe two if there is a second mortgage on your home), payoff your mortgage (mortgage discharge fee), all those records filed with the registry, all of those fees YOU are paying goes into this pool of CPA "state" money. When the CPA was enacted, those fees almost tripled! That fund that was matching us dollar for dollar last year gave us almost 43 cents on the dollar. It is projected that Sturbridge will receive less than that this year. There is NO guarantee of 100% match or any funding for that matter. Also, that 3% you pay is not part of your real estate taxes, it is a separate surcharge earmarked for the Community Preservation Fund accounts that the town holds. Currently the amount collected is LESS THAN what we need to satisfy our CPA debt.
Speaking of debt, I have also attached a copy of the article placed in the Southbridge Evening News written by Barbara Search. Unfortunately, the News did not print the entire article. The entire piece written by Barbara clearly shows what we have for debt INCLUDING the interest owed on that debt. (Link here to letter)
"CPA funds can be used to purchase land and then design and build the badly needed athletic fields in Sturbridge."
True - but at what costs? How many people will we need to employ (if any) to maintain all of these new ball fields? Have you seen the numbers yet? As said earlier, if the costs come in to high, the voters can come in and reject the entire project at town meeting, maybe after we have all ready purchased the land.
If Sturbridge revokes the CPA, the matching funds will just go to one of the 147 towns taking advantage of the CPA in Massachusetts, Also true - and I'm sure they will experience the excessive spending and debt we are currently experiencing and the taxpayers will foot the entire bill for new fields." Not true - what ever happened to the private sector and Yankee Ingenuity? Whatever happened to people believing in themselves? When did we all become so dependant on the Government to provide all our wants and needs?
The writer in the article states about 1/3 of the way into the article that "The Recreation Committee pursued a plan that included a parcel of town owned land that had been purchased for the purpose of recreation. A year ago the Recreation Committee presented a proposal for ball fields with shared facilities for baseball, softball, soccer, lacrosse, football, field hockey, basketball and general open space activities."
Wow! Quite the plan! Anyway, let's think about this: Funding, yes we already own the land. However, the land was not purchased for the purpose of recreation as detailed in the state's own records of CPA projects. Nowhere in the description of the project does it say anything about ball fields. The state receives this information from the town. If, in fact, it was purchased for the purpose of ball fields, why didn't the town say that? Next, have you seen the cost estimates for this project? Maybe someday they will be shared. I can almost guarantee you there will be more long term debt to the taxpayers to fund it.
My motto: VOTE YES ON 4 - Stop Spending . . . Pay Down the Debt
The writer then goes on to say at the end of the article:
"Achieving success in the effort to build new ball fields will require the combined efforts of town officials and the town administrator as well as youth sport coaches and league managers, but more importantly the parents of the children of Sturbridge need to step forward and become involved and help move this project beyond the design stage."
I agree and disagree. He left out some people. People willing to buy field naming rights. People willing to pledge substantial money over a few years. People that can afford a "want" and would be willing to contribute to this long term initiative. I believe if the coaches, managers, parents, and other talented adults come together to develop their own plan of action, then present the plan to the powers that be, the town officials and the town administrator your may have more general support from the community. If you count on passing a vote to fund a complex of this magnitude, it will never pass. You will need to find at least some independent funding separate from government (our) money if you ever want to see a project this size materialize. Regardless, there is NO GUARANTEE that you will get any money for any ball fields should we keep the CPA.
We need to separate wants from needs. We need to all come together to see our children play on new ball fields but not necessarily with full, or even partial (should the CPA remain intact) taxpayer debt.
In the meantime, I plan to work to control our I will Vote Yes on 3 and I hope others will join me.
Janet Garon
Let's retire the debt!
(Current total debt $52,000,000 divided by 8000 people = $6500 each! And that's without interest! Just a thought.)
Town of Carver claimed this as well and land was bought which no one can use and sports fields to this day were never built
ReplyDeleteI've been a member of my Town's Conservation Commission for 9 years and a member of the Open Space Committee since its inception. I continuously strive towards keeping mandatory fees no higher than necessary to process and retaining local control over the various projects.
ReplyDeleteRegional entities and Land Trusts were buzzing like bees and pushing us towards $2 million plans funded by land use & CPA grants for Open Space projects. We ended up having a few public work-parties and fund raisers at the site and made ourselves a soccer field.
We're planning on bringing the community together at this particular property to create foot trails, Boy Scout Camps, Community Gardens, Bird Blinds, Picnic Areas, Horseshoe Pits, and maybe even have some local kids HELP us design a BMX track in consideration of their hobby (isolate their activity).
The simple fact is that these grants always come with strings and those strings often include land use restrictions in perpetuity and have profound long term economic impacts.
There is NOTHING the CPA can do that YOUR COMMUNITY CAN'T DO itself!
Moreover, the various bureaucracies that facilitate these types of land use controls are underpinned by a philosophy of "Collective Land Use Rights" which translates into Socialism-Lite.
It doesn't help farms, it kills them.
It doesn't work within private property rights, it seeks to extinguish them.
It doesn't include public input, it just shapes it.
The people across the state are being robbed of something much more important than there hard earned money, they're also being robbed of the moments that build strong families and close communities. We had a blast, as a community, while we turned an old sand pit into much needed athletic field.
Those that are unwavering supporters of CPA, in principle, should just donate 3% of their Property Taxs to a related LOCAL effort. You'd get much more bang for your buck and retain 100% local control. No government intermediaries or special interest groups are necessary to achieve these goals.
Stand on your own two feet Sturbridge....DUMP THE CPA!!!
And even if ball fields were to be built, as stated in the above letter, who would end up paying to maintain them?
DeleteIt would be a never ending expense.
I can almost guarantee that anything else we do with CPA funds WILL result in MORE DEBT. Currently those surcharges are not enough to PAY THE DEBT. The amount collected is less than the amount needed to make the payments! How can we borrrow more money??????
DeleteHere is a note from Janet, the author of this piece.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Paul. I do have a big error in my article (and many small one's). I tried to respond but I do not know what a URL is and cannot post. Anyway, here is my message:
Oopps! My mistake! My proofing skills are weak! There are a few words missing and some type-o's but most importantly, it's question 4 . . . yes, 4, that we are voting on to Revoke the CPA. I made a mistake at the bottom. See what happens when you do this kind of stuff late at night?
The revoke the CPA effort is founded on the premise that taxpayers in Sturbridge would rather pay for 100% of the costs of their public projects than except matching funds from the Commonwealth. I for one think that revoking the CPA would be the height of foolishness. We have a beautiful high school that was largely built with state funds. Most of the sewer system extensions were partially funded with state and federal grant money. Why should the taxpayers in Sturbridge be saddled with many millions of dollars of
ReplyDeleteunnecessary debt because we are too dumb to accept state and federal matching funds to finance public projects. Why should the Massachusetts taxpayers who happen to live in Sturbridge subsidize CPA projects in Wayland, Weston and Sudbury and not want to get any benefit from the CPA for our Town. It seems like a no brainer to me. Whether your a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, no one wants taxes to be higher than they have to be. KEEP OUR TAX BURDEN REASONABLE. KEEP THE MATCHING FUNDS ROLLING. SAVE THE CPA. VOTE NO ON QUESTION 4!
I have to ask this question? Where do you think the state's money comes from? Does the state actually produce anything? No,you pat for it through all the other taxes you pay.
DeleteRead the comment above from Dave, there are other ways to do what needs to be done other than through higher debt and taxes.
I can almost guarantee that anything else we do with CPA funds WILL result in MORE DEBT. Currently those surcharges are not enough to PAY THE DEBT. The amount collected is less than the amount needed to make the payments! How can we borrrow more money??????
DeleteTake a look at our projected tax rates for the next few years:
Deletehttp://www.town.sturbridge.ma.us/Public_Documents/sturbridgema_reports/
To infer that keeping the CPA will keep taxes the same or lower is very misleading. Whether the CPA stays or not, the only way to fund multimillion dollar CPA and non-CPA expensive projects is by borrowing money. And when you borrow money, you have to pay interest.
ReplyDeleteSo, if CPA proponents are going to claim that the match is such a great deal, then let's look at last years numbers: the interest we paid on the four CPA projects was roughly about $130,000; the matching funds were about $150,000. Wow, that's great, huh? And the DOR forecasts that the match is going to be even less next year - hey, maybe we'll get lucky and break even? Looks like last year, we came out $20,000 ahead but that's being eaten up in our budget through additional staffing requests to maintain all the trails.
There's a huge assumption by CPA proponents, which is that voters will actually approve multi-million recreation, open space, historic and affordable housing projects after the CPA is revoked. None of those things bring revenue to the town; they're nice-to-haves.
The revocation effort is about taking a break - NOT spending money on projects that don't bring revenue into the town. It is inconceivable to me that voters would approve spending, and town officials would recommend purchasing, say, a $4,000,000 parcel for conservation purposes as opposed to running a waterline down Route 15. Or renovating an historic building to the tune of $2,000,000 as opposed to repairing three bridges that require immediate repairs for safety reasons.
The effort to revoke the CPA - and mind you, it is OUR RIGHT to do so after 5 years - revolves around the $4,300,000 owed on CPA projects and that we must now pay that bill until 2030. It's also about bringing in $354,225 in surcharge revenues and realizing we have $413,432 in debt last year. But as a bonus, even after revocation, the town continues receive matching funds to the local surcharge to help pay that debt.
How much more in millions of dollars of extraneous projects do you expect people to carry? WHY and HOW do you expect people to pay for such things when people are losing their homes, can't find a job, and some are really struggling to make ends meet? What was it I heard recently...30 foreclosures in Sturbridge?
The lack of transparency and mishandling of the CPA in Sturbridge is astounding. I haven't heard one CPA proponent address the fact that the town spent $66,000 on playground equipment that isn't allowed spending within CPA guidelines; nor about the money spent on field designs on a conservation parcel; or about the conservation restrictions that STILL aren't completed in accordance with the law.
This is about making tough decisions in tough times. You may not have noticed that affluent communities actually are the net winners with CPA. Those properties with the highest property values receive up to 15 or 25% more of the revenues from the matching fund; but I don't hear anyone complaining about that - our money is actually flowing to the Cape and Middlesex County.
Remember Sturbridge before the CPA...before that 3% was on your tax bill? Vote YES on Question 4 to take a break, pay down this debt, only approve projects that bring revenue INTO the town, and get ourselves right-side-up again.
What has the CPA done for you lately? Let's see now, we've had the CPA for 11 years and the claim is that the taxes will go up if the CPA is revoked. Here's the town administrator's forecast from the FY13 5-Yr Revenue Forecast.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.town.sturbridge.ma.us/Public_Documents/sturbridgema_reports/
Go to page 4 at the very bottom. Look at the forecast taxrates and property values and follow them across the page from FY2013 to FY2017.
Our current $17.63 tax rate is forecast to increase to $19.13 for FY2013. Thereafter, the town administrator optimistically forecasts that property values will increase by roughly $16,500,000 each year out to 2017, while the tax rate is forecast to increase as follows: FY14: $19.38; FY15: $19.67; FY16: $19.99; FY17: 20.56. (Source: 5-Yr Revenue Projections by Shaun Suhoski, Town Administrator) Carol
the last two comments are both from Carol
Delete