Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Howard Baker-Smith <br /> Chairperson, Dartmouth Community Preservation Committee <br /> 10/31/2008 <br /> have supplied to us. In our view,the proposed activity more closely corresponds to the <br /> statutory activity of"rehabilitation,"which is not an eligible purpose for expenditures <br /> for recreational land not being newly acquired. <br /> This conclusion accords with the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in the <br /> matter of Seideman v.Newton,No. SJC-10135 (Oct.24,2008). The Court ruled against <br /> the use of CPA monies to carry out improvements at two existing parks in the City of <br /> Newton. As the Court explained, "the proposed projects ... fall more squarely within <br /> the definition of'rehabilitation' .... However, the appropriation of CPA funds for the <br /> parks' 'rehabilitation' is not permitted under G.L. c.44B,§5(b)(2),where,as here,it is <br /> undisputed that the parks were not acquired or created with such funds in the first <br /> instance." <br /> In sum, we conclude that the proposal to pave the parking lot for the DYSA <br /> athletic fields is not an eligible expenditure of funds subject to the CPA. <br /> If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to contact us again. <br /> Very truly ours, <br /> Kathleen Colleary,Chief <br /> Bureau of Municipal Finance Law <br /> KC:DG <br /> 20 <br />