|
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2017 ATM&STM 2017-1
<br /> from surcharges on the transaction fees charged by the State's Registries of Deeds. Those funds are
<br /> transferred to the State's Community Preservation Act Trust Fund (CPATF) from which, according to a
<br /> formula based on each town's prior-fiscal-year's property-tax surcharges, that supplemental funding is
<br /> distributed. The supplement can theoretically be as high as a 100% match to the town's own surcharge
<br /> revenue, but the percentage is not guaranteed and has not reached 100% since FY2008. When the
<br /> distribution is less than 100%, the State does a 2"d-round, and potentially 31-d-round, calculation to
<br /> determine the final supplemental funding for those communities that have adopted the maximum 3%
<br /> surcharge, including Lexington.
<br /> In the last four years, the State has also annually had a provision by which the CPATF has received
<br /> additional funding if the State's prior-year's budget ended with a surplus. However, the State's FY2016
<br /> did not end with a surplus so such additional funding did not occur.
<br /> The Community Preservation Coalition, of which Lexington is a member, continues to be the
<br /> organization that works with municipalities in Massachusetts to increase the adoption of the CPA and,
<br /> importantly, with our State House to improve the funding of the CPATF. Rather than advocating for
<br /> continuing the "if there is a surplus" approach for increasing that funding, an "An Act To Sustain
<br /> Community Preservation" has been filed in the Massachusetts Legislature which would call for the filing
<br /> fees at the Registries of Deeds to be established such that a 50% matching rate of the State's distribution
<br /> to what the municipality has raised by its CPA surcharge or other authorized municipal revenue can be
<br /> expected to be achieved. At this time, the sponsors in both the House and Senate have been joined by 121
<br /> other members has co-sponsors. If the bill should pass in the current Legislative session and be signed by
<br /> the Governor, that enhanced funding would first be experienced in FY2019.
<br /> This table reflects how Lexington has fared since adopting the CPA, along with a projection for FY2018:
<br /> Prior-Years CPA State Supplement Percentage
<br /> Year in whichTotal Suppl
<br /> supplement received Surcharge Collected' 1st Round 2nd Round 3rd Round Total Amount
<br /> FY2008(Actual) $2,556,362 100.0% N/A N/A 100.0% $2,556,362
<br /> FY2009(Actual) $2,777,882 67.6% 1.8% N/A 69.4% $1,927,708
<br /> FY2010(Actual) $2,931,678 34.8% 0.9% 0.5% IP 36.2% $1,060,390
<br /> FY2011 (Actual) $3,042,587 27.2% 0.6% 0.4% • 28.2% $858,729
<br /> FY2012(Actual) $3,206,117 26.6% 0.6% 0.4% 5' 27.6% $885,463
<br /> FY2013(Actual)2 $3,344,371 26.8% 0.6% 0.4% • 27.8% $929,507
<br /> FY2014(Actual)3 $3,572,460 52.2% 1.1% 0.7% • 54.1% $1,932,347
<br /> FY2015(Actual)4 $3,777,676 31.5% 0.7% 0.4% P. 32.6% $1,230,116
<br /> FY2016(Actual)5 $4,012,883 29.7% 0.6% 0.4% • 30.7% $1,229,774
<br /> FY2017(Actual)6 $4,217,305 20.6% 0.4% 0.3% 21.3% $897,243
<br /> Total Actual: $33,439,321 Received to date: 40.4% $13,507,639
<br /> FY2018(Projected)7 $4,418,000 TBD TBD TBD 19.0% $839,000
<br /> Totals including projected: $37,857,321 37.9% $14,346,639
<br /> l The"actuals"are the net amounts as used by the State;the"projected"is the Town's projection for the gross collection.
<br /> 2 The Total Suppl Amount includes$255 to correct an underpayment in FY2012 from an error with Phillipston's surcharge.
<br /> s The Total Suppl Amount reflects there was a$25 million addition to the State's CPA Trust Fund because the State finished FY2013 with a
<br /> surplus of at least that amount-thereby permitting the maximum amount authorized by the State Legislature to go into that Fund.
<br /> 4 The Total Suppl Amount reflects there was a$11.4 million addition to the State's CPA Trust Fund because the State finished FY2014 with
<br /> a surplus of at least that amount-thereby permitting the maximum amount authorized by the State Legislature to go into that Fund.
<br /> s The Total Suppl Amount reflects there was a$10 million addition to the State's CPA Trust Fund because the State finished FY2015 with a
<br /> surplus of at least that amount-thereby permitting the maximum amount authorized by the State Legislature to go into that Fund.
<br /> 6 There was no State budget surplus from FY2016 so,while the State Legislature authorized for there to be up to a$10 million addition if
<br /> there were such a surplus, there was no subsequent State infusion into the State's CPA Trust Fund.
<br /> The projected percentage does not include any increase that would result from the State deciding to continue to infuse the State's CPA
<br /> Trust Fund with additional funding from a prior-year budget surplus or a revision to the fees at the Registries of Deeds
<br /> As shown above, except last year, our experience in the 211d & 3rd rounds had been at least an additional
<br /> 1.0%.
<br /> 7
<br />
|