By the narrowest margin of the day, Town Meeting voters rejected a proposal on Saturday that would have nearly tripled the surcharge on property taxes that funds community preservation projects. With three key committees, including the Board of Selectmen, opposed to its passage—though their votes were split—the outcome was hardly a surprise. What did surprise some observers was the stubborn support for the increase that remained.
The vote on Article 36, “Modification of CPA Surcharge,” came late in the afternoon, after more than half of the 300-plus attendees who registered that morning had left to tend to Saturday chores and school athletic events. Of those remaining in the Bromfield Gym, 81 voted against and 75 voted in favor of the article. It was the only vote that required a hand count.
As Moderator Bob Eubank announced that the measure had failed to collect the simple majority it required, there were cheers from a small faction seated in the bleachers, followed by groans elsewhere as the narrowness of the defeat became known.
Had it passed, the article would have raised the so-called CPA surcharge on Harvard property taxes from 1.1 to 3 percent. Money from the surcharge goes into a Community Preservation Fund that is overseen by the Community Preservation Committee and used to pay for land purchases, affordable housing, conservation and historical renovations, such as the one planned for Town Hall. To be enacted, it would have also needed the approval of town voters at the presidential election ballot box in November and would not have taken effect until the start of the 2014 tax year.
For homeowners wishing to know their annual contribution to the fund, the amount appears as a separate line item on their annual Harvard tax bill. For the average household bill of $8,527 in 2012, the amount would have been $93.98. With the new surcharge in place, the amount would have risen to $255.81.
From support to rejection
The effort to raise the CPA surcharge began its journey to Town Meeting this year with near universal support. Last June, Selectmen made passage of the increase one of their goals, and they placed it on the warrant this spring. The Finance and Community Preservation committees voted in March to recommend it, unanimously in the case of Finance Committee, but by a 3-2-1 vote in the case of Community Preservation Committee.
Proponents have argued that a higher surcharge not only raises more money for the town but increases the number of matching grants from the state. Towns that collect the maximum 3 percent surcharge get a higher percentage match from the state than those who don’t. And the local and state money that collects in the Community Preservation Fund can be used to pay for major historical renovation projects like those contemplated for Town Hall, Hildreth House, and the old library. Money taken from the fund, advocates say, is money the town won’t have to borrow with interest and add to the property tax bill. The Community Preservation Committee has voted to contribute $1 million from its fund over 20 years to help pay for the debt the town will take on to renovate Town Hall.
But support for the higher surcharge began to unravel in April. First the Selectmen voted 3-2 not to recommend it. Then, just last week, the Finance Committee reversed itself in a 4-3 vote and withdrew the recommendation that it had written just two weeks earlier and submitted for publication in the Town Meeting warrant.
Finally, at 8:30 a.m. Saturday morning, just before the start of Town Meeting, the Community Preservation Committee changed its position as well, and issued two nuanced recommendations. In a 5-2 vote, with vice chair Debbie Ricci and member Rhonda Sprague voting against, the committee agreed that if the Town Hall project failed, they would support the higher surcharge, arguing that the additional money could be tied directly to a future town plan. But by a 6-1 vote, the committee agreed that if the Town Hall project passed, it would withdraw its support. The second recommendation was opposed by Michelle Catalina, who said she thought it was “always good” to get matching money whenever it is available.
Across all of the committees, the principal argument against passing Article 36 now was the lack of a plan for using the additional money. Opponents also noted that state law would force the town to live with its decision for a minimum of five years.
The position was perhaps best summarized by the updated comment on the article by the Finance Committee, which was read to Town Meeting by its author, Steve Colwell. The statement said that while the Finance Committee realized more money would be needed in the future to renovate historical buildings in town, “there is no estimate for the historic portion of the proposed renovations to Hildreth House….Nor is there any estimate for the old fibrary or other town buildings in need of repair.”
Besides, the statement continued, there are sufficient funds available for current community preservation projects, including Town Hall, plus $775,000 in the community preservation portion of the Town’s Conservation Fund and another approximately $450,000 in the Municipal Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
Before seeking an increase in the surcharge, the Finance Committee said, Selectmen should appoint an “ad hoc task force” to come up with an estimate and five-year plan for how the new money would be used. A Special Town Meeting could be called this coming fall to adopt a higher rate in time for fiscal 2014.
If the task force cannot come up with a plan, said the Finance Committee, “We will have saved the taxpayers five years of the additional 1.9 percent surcharge.”
Comments by Town Meeting attendees echoed those made by the spokesmen for the Selectmen, Community Preservation Committee, and Finance Committee. Former Selectman Lucy Wallace, of Orchard Hill, said she was “bothered” that the town was “perhaps being a little shortsighted in not thinking about the potential state funds we could be getting.” She said the recent drop in matching funds could be attributed to the statewide drop in real estate transactions, whose fees fund the grants, “due to the down economy.”
“When the economy picks up,” she said, “we should expect to be getting more.”
Ted Maxant, of Still River Road, said, however, that if the surcharge increase went down in defeat, he intended to gather support for an article at the next Town Meeting to repeal the surcharge entirely, “and do away with this tax and spending.” His statement was greeted with a scattering of applause.
The CPA surcharge was “sold to us as voters” specifically for conservation, he said, “with the carrot that the state would match every dollar one-for-one.”
“You all know they never did this,” Maxant said.
Stu Sklar, of Scott Road, however, argued that if the CPA surcharge had been increased five years ago, there would be “more money available now for Town Hall” and other projects.
“The thing about pressing needs…is that they always come up unexpectedly,” he said. “We know we have Hildreth House…and a number of other projects looming….We should be planning for this stuff and getting the return on our investment by getting some matching funds from the state. Be it 22 percent or 5 percent, it’s better than zero percent.”
