Voters OK tax surcharge

Also approve delay on demolitions

In a pair of victories on Monday for the Lynnfield Historical Commission, a Special Town Meeting approved two proposals aimed at protecting the community's assets.

By a vote of 159-126, the meeting approved adopting the Community Preservation Act, a state law that allows cities and towns to impose a property tax surcharge to support open space, historic preservation, affordable housing, and recreation projects. The state provides matching dollars.

For Lynnfield to accept the CPA, the Town Meeting vote must be ratified by voters at the annual town election in the spring.

Town Meeting members also voted 135-89 to adopt a bylaw allowing the Historical Commission to impose a one-year delay in the demolition of buildings it deems to be worthy of preservation. As with all new town bylaws, the demolition delay requires approval by the state attorney general.

Commission member Linda Gillon said she was "truly dumbfounded" that the panel, whose current members have been working together only for about a year, was able to prevail in Town Meeting votes on two major initiatives.

"This has taken nine months of hard work to put this together," she said. "I don't think we realized how much work it would be, but it was certainly worth it."

The CPA vote was particularly striking given the economic downturn and the fiscal pressures the town is facing.

The proposal approved by Town Meeting provides for a 3 percent surcharge on property taxes, with exemptions for the first $100,000 of the value of each home, and for the properties of low- to moderate-income seniors and all low-income homeowners. The surcharge would add $145 to the annual tax bill for an average home assessed at $581,000.

Even as it voted to adopt the CPA, voters at the Special Town Meeting approved a series of fiscal moves that will result in the town collecting $640,000 in revenues this year from a previous debt exclusion - a temporary tax increase to repay debt - according to town administrator William J. Gustus.

The town had adopted the exclusion in 2005 to help finance a golf course purchase, but until this year had avoided raising the additional taxes. Gustus said the town has decided to do so this year as part of an overall plan to deal with projected revenue shortfalls for the current and next fiscal year. The effort also includes cutting $350,000 from the current budget, placing the $640,000 freed up from the debt exclusion into reserve funds, and not spending any of the $650,000 in free or available cash.

Gustus said the decision to collect taxes from the 2005 debt exclusion would add about $140 to the tax bill of an average home.

Historical Commission member Stephen J. Smith said his panel had been pessimistic about its chances with the CPA proposal given the economic climate.

"I'm shocked and tremendously pleased," he said. "I can't imagine there being any worse timing for this proposal. The state is going bankrupt. The federal government is going bankrupt. Everyone's 401K's are taking a dive. . . . But people thoughtfully and I think courageously said this is worth spending money on."

In arguing the case for the CPA at Town Meeting, Smith said he noted that Lynnfield was losing out on state matching funds. Had the surcharge been in place since the act took effect in 2001, Lynnfield would have received $3.6 million in state money as of this fall, he noted.

Until now, local CPA revenues have been fully matched by a state trust fund generated from fees at registries of deeds. That level is set to decline as of this fall. But Smith said that even using a conservative estimate of a 30 percent match in fiscal 2010, when Lynnfield's surcharge would take effect, the town would receive $198,000 in state revenue to match $659,000 raised locally.

Proponents had argued that by using CPA money, the town could undertake a variety of projects, from acquiring and restoring old homes to building ballfields.

Selectman Al Merritt, in a statement prior to Town Meeting, said that he opposed the CPA proposal in part because it would impose a "significant additional tax burden" on property owners and that this is not a good time for such an increase given the financial challenges facing the town.

Gillon, who presented the commission's case for the demolition delay bylaw, said she had anticipated the possible defeat of that measure because more people spoke against it than for it.

"We are so elated that this has passed, and now we can move forward knowing we are not going to be losing our historic homes anytime someone wants to tear something down," she said. "They will still be able to do that after one year, but hopefully, we will be able to work with them to find alternatives to tearing houses down."

Gillon speculated that residents who embraced the measure "were just voting from their hearts. They liked driving through town and seeing these beautiful homes."

Opponents contended that the bylaw would unduly burden the owners of old homes. But Gillon said an informal survey she conducted of owners of old homes prior to the meeting found that 32 of 43 respondents supported the measure, with six opposed and five saying they needed more time to study it.