2006-11-29-SPTM1-AC-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE REPORT TO STM1-NOVEMBER 2006 $20,000 to the Town. That settlement agreement calls for this payment to be used for historic- preservation purposes. The Board of Selectmen recommends that, in the light of the basis for that payment, the $20,000 be appropriated to the Town's Community Preservation Fund-Historic Reserve; thereby increasing the funds available for CPA projects in the Historic Preservation category. This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports that recommendation. Project Description Amount Requested Funding Source Committee Recommends $25,000 11 a Hancock-Clarke House ( )() (Total Restoration-Phase I estimated CPA A rove 9-0 pp ( ) COSt 1S $50,000 "The Lexington Historical Society is undertaking a project to restore the Hancock-Clarke House, to provide accessibility (real and virtual) for the disabled, and to determine the feasibility of continued use of the structure for archives and museum storage. The Society has been awarded a $25,000 grant from the Massachusetts Historical Commission-which must be matched with other funds-to engage the services of an architect and architectural historian to develop detailed construction plans and specifications for the restoration." (Project Application, July 24, 2006, "Project Information, Scope of Project ") This Committee has not yet reached a consensus on the use of CPA funds for non-Town-owned assets as opposed to for Town-owned assets. The majority of us feel it is important to judge proposed projects against the potential set of CPA-eligible projects for Town-owned, or what will be Town-owned assets and feel the "bar" should be set higher for a project that is for anon-Town-owned asset. After all, use of CPA funding shouldn't just be a reward to those "first at the gate" because every CPA dollar spent today is one less CPA dollar available to be spent tomorrow-and some of the potential CPA projects (e.g., for Open Space) would carry very large price tags. As we reported to the 2005 Town Meeting in regard to adoption of the CPA (our Report, released 1l~arch 28, 2005, page 14, under Article 7: Adoption of Community Preservation Act, emphasis added): Implementing the CPA with a 3% surcharge is roughly equivalent (in terms of taxpayer impact) to a $2,000,000 override. The advantage of funding projects through CPA (while full State reimbursement lasts) over an override is clear - we potentially double our spending power with matching funds from the State of $2 million. But without a clear idea of how potential CPA projects prioritize against current Town needs, passing the CPA may seriously challenge our community's propensity to "tax" itself in the near future, potentially endangering attempts to fund operations or capital needs. Thus, we believe it is important to analyze the proponents' list of projects on the horizon that are likely to be eligible to take advantage of CPA assistance, and compare what savings might be realized by leveraging CPA and the State trust fund versus utilizing operating funds or debt exclusion funds alone. Other Committee members believe that 1) merit of the project and its value to the community and 2) availability of other sources of funding should be the principal criteria in any decision of the CPC, this Committee, or Town Meeting, and that ownership of an asset by an entity not part of our Town government should not necessarily imply that a higher degree of justification is needed. In the case of this project, it is clear that the CPA permits the funding of projects for preservation and rehabilitation of a town's historic assets-and this Committee recognizes the importance of the Hancock- Clarke House as one of this Town's principal historic assets. Regardless of our view of the criteria to be applied to funding of non-Town-owned assets and even if there weren't the $25,000 matching grant, we Page 11 of 15