4/5/2011 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

Mary Ellen Gattoni Page Two purpose. Even if a restriction is not being acquired under this program, the statute allows monies to be used in support of affordable housing. Support is not defined in the statute,but it could include a broad range of programs to provide affordable housing. We think the statute contemplates that these programs result in additional affordable housing units in the community,but some have interpreted it to allow support or assistance to individuals needing affordable housing as well. The second appropriation is for the restoration of an historic building owned by the Norfolk Grange,which is a private,non-profit organization. Rehabilitation or restoration of historic properties is an allowable purpose. There is nothing in the CPA that prohibits the use of funds for this project simply because the property is privately owned. However, under the Anti-aid Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution,public funds cannot be given or loaned to private individuals or organizations for their private purposes. Mass. Const. Amend. Article 46§2, as amended by Article 103. Any expenditure must be to advance a public purpose. The preservation of historic assets is generally understood to have legitimate public purposes. Both the federal and state governments, for example,have various historic grant programs,which include grants to non-profit organizations. www.sec.state.ma.i45/mhc/mhcidx.htm. Typically,these programs result in the public acquiring an historic preservation restriction or receiving some other benefit to ensure that the grant is for public rather than private purposes. For example, in an anti-aid case involving state monies given to a non-profit group to rehabilitate the U.S.S. Massachusetts for use as a memorial and museum, the Supreme Judicial Court found the expenditure was for a public purpose because the property would be open to the public as a place to contemplate and honor those who died in the service of their country and to educate school children,who were admitted free of charge, about history. Helmes v. Commonwealth,406 Mass. 873. In the case of the Grange property,we understand the town will acquire an historic preservation restriction and the organization must use the funds received in exchange to finance the rehabilitation. In other words, it appears the town is receiving an interest in the property to ensure that its investment of public funds benefits the public through the preservation of a piece of the town's history. The last appropriation was to create and preserve recreational facilities at a town owned pond. From information provided, the Community Preservation Committee and Recreation Department sought the monies to restore the pond and beach area and to make it suitable for recreational purposes,such as swimming, picnicking and boating. Apparently, the pond was once used for swimming and fishing,but it was closed many years ago due to contamination from poor drainage in the area. You claim that the monies will actually be used to build a water treatment plant near the pond. We are obviously not in a position to evaluate that claim, although the $85,000 appropriated would not seem sufficient to build such a facility. In any event, given that the site is not currently used for recreational purposes, any expenditure to restore the pond and beach area would probably qualify as creation of a recreational asset. 15