Vote no on Question 4

By STEPHANIE O'KEEFFE and ALISA BREWER

Published on October 17, 2008

We are proud that in April 2001 ours was among the first communities to adopt the Community Preservation Act. Looking back, it is surprising that Amherst sought 1 percent rather than the full 3 percent property tax surcharge, since the CPA funding categories - preservation of open space and historic resources, and investment in affordable housing and recreation - are well-aligned with community values. In November 2006, voters opted to increase that surcharge to 1.5 percent, and it has served us well. So why not take full advantage of state matching funds and move to 3 percent now?

Because it asks the community to pay higher tax bills to increase funding for four narrow spending categories, while essential town services are threatened.

Amherst's budget situation is bleak. Even before the current global economic crisis, we faced a projected gap of $2.6 million for FY10 (learn more at www.AmherstChoices.org) and that gap grows over the next five years. We aren't creating new programs and services; rather, the costs of providing existing programs and services are rising much faster than the revenue to pay for them. This has been the reality for several years, so past cuts have us operating at already-reduced service levels.

The governor is now expecting significant mid-year cuts in this year's budget. If this includes cuts to local aid for current spending that has already been approved, we're in big trouble. The news just keeps getting worse.

Some say that CPA funds can lessen our budget woes by paying for capital needs. Last year, we were lucky to fit the Town Hall masonry and clock tower repairs in to the CPA eligibility strictures. But CPA law is clear that those monies are not to fund day-to-day town operating expenses and maintenance; they are for specific areas of preservation and enhancement. While those interests intersected with the Town Hall project and did provide some capital budget relief, it also meant that those CPA dollars were not put toward more traditional CPA investment priorities. It was deemed a reasonable trade-off, but such opportunities are rare.

Some talk about "leaving money on the table" by not maximizing our eligibility for state matching funds. Often, the 401(k) analogy is used, citing the conventional wisdom that one should contribute the salary percentage necessary to receive the full employer match. This is a good rule of thumb, but no financial advisor would recommend it to someone unable to afford the mortgage or groceries. That's where this vote might take us. We could max out the allowable CPA percentage for the best return on state matching funds, and increase our CPA spending while we cut teachers, defer road repairs, and reduce other core services.

Additionally, those matching funds are declining. More communities have adopted the CPA, so the pie is divided into more slices. And that pie is shrinking. Property transaction fees collected by the Registry of Deeds fund the Massachusetts Community Preservation Trust Fund, which funds the matches. Fee totals dwindled as the hot real estate market cooled. The state's Division of Local Services predicts FY10 matching grants to be "considerably lower" than the already-reduced FY09 matches. Yes, communities at 3 percent will get more - but it's more of less. Better than less of less, but not so compelling anymore.

Just as many in Amherst struggle to determine how to heat their homes, keep food on their tables and gas in their cars this winter, so too is the town struggling to fund its essentials. We even struggle to define and agree on what we consider "essential." And in the midst of this, we face the CPA ballot question asking people to pay higher taxes for spending most consider comparatively non-essential.

We must prioritize essential services as we make budget decisions. If our community is willing and able to pay higher taxes - and many argue it is not - how do we best leverage those funds for maximum community benefit? Is it by increasing spending for open space, historic preservation, affordable housing and recreation, while making cuts to key government functions like schools, public safety, road repair and libraries?

The CPA surcharge is adequate at 1.5 percent and will continue to provide enrichments to our community. This isn't the right time to increase it to 3 percent. Town finances face too much uncertainty - and all too much bleak certainty - to increase taxes for this purpose now. Raising taxes to pay for essentials may ultimately be necessary, and these days we can't afford to have it all.

Stephanie O'Keeffe and Alisa Brewer are members of the Amherst Select Board.