State aid drops for preservation, but few complain

For fiscal year 2010, the average state match plunged to 40 percent. That’s the lowest level since the program began eight years ago, down from a high of 100 percent just two years ago.

Local officials say they aren’t surprised by the drop given the state’s economic conditions, and are happy with any match.

“The writing was on the wall, and we knew it was going to be dropping,’’ said Robert Morse, chairman of the Chelmsford Community Preservation Committee. “It’s something we have to plan for.’’

Chelmsford received $260,838 this year, which is down from $524,702 last year.

Chelmsford is among 142 communities that participate in the Community Preservation Act. The program allows communities to apply a surcharge of up to 3 percent on property taxes to raise funds for open space and recreation, affordable housing, and historic preservation. Chelmsford’s surcharge, for example, is 1.5 percent.

Of the communities that participate in the program, 135 received a state match for the current fiscal year; the remaining communities did not approve the program in time to receive a match this year.

The matching funds are generated from fees on real estate recording documents filed at county registries and go into a Community Preservation Act trust fund.

Twenty communities north of Boston received funds, with North Andover receiving the most, $489,834, and Essex the least, $13,598.

“We’re delighted to have a match of close to a half-million dollars that can help fund some significant projects that will improve the quality of life here,’’ said John Simons, chairman of North Andover’s preservation committee. Andover has a 3 percent surcharge.

Officials say the state match is lower this year for two reasons.

“It’s gone down because more communities have gotten involved, and the amount of money that goes to the fund has gone down with the decline of the real estate markets,’’ said Robert Bliss, a spokesman for the state Department of Revenue, which oversees the trust fund.

Michael Dissette, chairman of the Newburyport Community Preservation Committee, said officials were bracing for a match between 28 to 30 percent, so they were relieved to see 40 percent.

Newburyport received $202,956 this year in matching funds.

“I believe it will hopefully improve with more activity in the real estate market,’’ Dissette said. “But it’s certainly 30 percent more in local funds than we would’ve had otherwise.’’

Newburyport’s surcharge is 2 percent.

Georgetown has a 3 percent surcharge and will be receiving $170,797 this year from the state.

Despite the fact that the match has gone down, Harry LaCortiglia, chairman of Georgetown’s preservation committee, said the program is worth the investment.

“It’s still one of the best deals going,’’ he said. “Any money we get to do the good things we’re doing is a big help.’’

LaCortiglia said the committee has been conservative in its spending and has set aside some money each year.

He said that extra cushion will allow the committee to continue funding important projects even though it’s receiving less from the state.

“We have a little bit of a war chest,’’ he said. “Everyone also realizes we’ll get out of this economic slump, and as soon as we do, the trust fund will swell again.’’

Stuart Saginor, executive director of the Community Preservation Coalition, a nonprofit organization that provides technical assistance to communities adopting or implementing the CPA, said the match is projected to be as low as 28 percent next year. The current CPA legislation states that it can go as low as 5 percent.

In an effort to keep the match from continuing downward, the coalition is supporting legislation filed by state Senator Cynthia Stone Creem of Newton and state Representative Stephen Kulik of Worthington, both Democrats, that would raise the minimum match rate to 75 percent.

To support the legislation with additional funds, the bill would increase the CPA fee on real estate recording instruments from $20 to $40.

“Unless the Legislature acts, it will impact the ability of communities to do projects,’’ Saginor said. “If it’s not sustained, you’ll see less open space being protected, historic buildings continue to deteriorate, and fewer opportunities for people to have homes they can afford.’’

A legislative committee held a hearing on the proposal in September, and Saginor said he is hopeful the Legislature will approve it this year.

Chelmsford’s Morse said he worries that the program will lose popularity if the match continues to go down.

He said other communities may be less likely to opt into the program if the match is low, and towns that already participate could face attempts to repeal or lower the surcharge.

“It does erode support for the CPA to a degree,’’ Morse said.

But Morse said the program remains popular in Chelmsford and he is not aware of any movement to change it.

The program has remained popular in Newburyport and North Andover as well, in part because the communities have spent the money wisely, officials said.

Committee members said they were fortunate to have received a high match for many years, allowing them to take on many important projects.

In Chelmsford, for example, the town has purchased 25 acres of farmland that’s been preserved as open space and is used for community gardens.

“That’s been a terrific asset for the town,’’ Morse said.

Officials said they were prepared for a drop this year, and possibly for years to come as the state rebounds from the economic crisis.

“What we don’t want to do is to get ahead of ourselves with projects, so we take a conservative approach,’’ Simons said.

Officials said they will study applications closely, possibly hold off on large land acquisition projects, and consider bonding big-ticket projects instead of paying for them all at once.

But overall, few changes are expected in their planning, which many said already takes place five years out.

“In Newburyport, the process is driven by what applications we receive,’’ Dissette said, “so I don’t think it necessarily changes our strategy.’’

Jennifer Fenn Lefferts can be reached at jflefferts@yahoo.com.