Vote Yes for the CPA on April 2 - Move Stoneham Forward
VOTE YES FOR CPA, COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT
APRIL 2, 2013, QUESTION 1, STONEHAM TOWN ELECTIONS
THE CPA WILL IMPROVE OUR COMMUNITY AND FUND PROJECTS THAT DO NOT RECEIVE REVENUE FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
The CPA funds outdoor recreation, open space, historic preservation projects and more.
- 155 Massachusetts communities have passed the CPA. Every year those communities have received extra matching state aid to assist in completing their town projects. To date, over $400,000,000 in state aid has enhanced those cities and towns. Stoneham has yet to receive anything.
- CPA IS VERY POPULAR AMONG THE COMMUNITIES WHERE IT HAS PASSED. NO COMMUNITY HAS EVER REVOKED A CPA SURCHARGE.
- CPA is a 1% increase in our property tax. This is an average of $12 on each quarterly prop. tax bill.
- Stoneham’s town CPA fund will be augmented with state matching funds, ranging from 27%-40% on the revenues that we raise. All funds always stay in Stoneham for our town projects.
- CPA state matching funding was increased by $25,000,000 this year by the legislature.
- State CPA revenues are earmarked from the Register of Deeds. These collections show an increased growth of 25% this year.
- CPA sets up a local nine member Community Preservation Committee made up of currently elected board members and appointed volunteers. This committee is defined by our town by-laws.
- All CPA Committee project recommendations must be approved by a vote at Town Meeting.
- CPA funding can carry over from one year to the next. CPA money is never allowed to be transferred to cover general fund operating expenses.
- The CPA “blended” feature:
* Stoneham is among the first to take advantage of newly enacted legislated reforms.
* Stoneham is allowed to add other revenues from gifts and grants to our CPA fund.
* Stoneham receives additional matching state aid on those funds as well. Examples:
* Mitigation money from the Hospital or Fallon Road
*The Rebuilding Rounds Playground could be augmented
* Gifts from philanthropic organizations, community banks, individual pledges, free cash, fund raising
The Lexington Capital Expenditure Comm., which initially opposed CPA, recently unanimously endorsed the positive impact CPA has had. It has saved Lexington thousands of dollars in bond interest costs and has avoided overrides and debt exclusions.
- Northampton declared that CPA immediately improved the town’s bond rating.
- CPA IS A GOOD BANG FOR OUR BUCK! VOTE YES FOR CPA ON APRIL 2. THANK YOU. SUPPORT OUR STONEHAM
Mark
12:08 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Vote No for CPA!
Stoneham Student Population has decreased by 568 students over the past 11 years. At $10,612 average cost to educate those students the good folks of Stoneham should’ve realized a savings of $6M dollars. Instead the cost have gone up by $6.5M dollars.
You CPA folks want some money go see the School Committee! Ask for a refund!
Paul Rotondi
9:51 pm on Wednesday, March 13, 2013
The expenditures defined above can come out of General Revenues, What the supporters want is to take them out of General fund Revenues so they will have more money to spend on operating expenses. Remember, you can't do anything about rising gas prices, rising insurance costs, or rising food costs, but you can prevent rising tax bills by voting No
Richard
7:00 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I agreePaul. Even though it is only a 1% increase. I assume to choose how I spend my money and not let the gov spend it. Gov Patrick is continuing to come up with new ideas on how to tax us. Tax percents have always gone up and never go down.
I love my children and want the best for them but I am tired of paying NEW taxes.
I am voting NO.
Patricia
8:39 am on Thursday, March 14, 2013
I agree with voting NO on CPA since all of us are facing greater uncertainty with both the federal and state governments actively pushing for tax increases - that's on top of a lousy economy. I couldn't imagine a worse time for this.
Look, for all the parents wanting cleaned up playgrounds - why not volunteer time and effort? Why not fund raise? Why not involve the kids? Not everything has to be paid for by taxes. Having parochial school background - where schools get no state funding, they have it right. Parents are all involved and chip in as they can. Fathers who are electricians, plumbers, etc... offer services. Everyone has skin in the game and the kids especially benefit from the parental involvement.
Tom Boussy
1:16 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Mark, you are correct in stating that as the student population decreases the cost per has increased. This is due partly to the budget agreement; according to the agreement the schools get 47.35 % of the budget regardless of student population, this is the breakout
FY 14 Budget
SCHOOL 47.35% $24,231,891
TOWN 28.88% $14,780,365
HEALTH INS. 15.06% $7,706,051
PENSIONS 8.71% $4,454,637
Total $51,172,980
I have suggested we select 10 communities that are similar in demographics and geographical locations and compare the cost per student with the MCAS results and then try to determine where we should fit in on that list. The 10 communities haven’t been selected so I don’t know if we are spending too much or not enough. If we can come to an agreement based on MCAS that we need be in the top 35% of CPS then that number should be committed to the schools. Tonight at 8:00 the Bi-board will be meeting at the high school specifically to go over the budget, please come on out, it’s a good opportunity to find out how much of the general revenue will be put to the funds that are mentioned above. I will be there ½ hour early and will stay as late as anyone needs, if you have any questions.
Mark
2:14 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Tom, Thanks for the reply!
According to the DOE website http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/profiles/finance.aspx?orgcode=02840000&orgtypecode=5&&fycode=2006 in 2005 Stoneham spent $27M to educate 2991 students. Fast forward to 2011 and Stoneham spent $33.5M to educate 441 less children. $6.5M more of our tax dollars to educate 441 less kids? Something stinks and the pro CPA or tax increase crowd should do their homework!
You could actually make an argument, with this many less students, we should be closing school(s) not adding them.
For pro CPA folks to be looking for additional taxes is absolute lunacy.
Additionally Katherine Clark and Jason Lewis and those who preceded them are failing this town in getting us our fair share of Chap 70 funding. According to Deval Patricks propaganda to the state's legislature http://www.mass.gov/governor/docs/maps/education/senate-fifth-middlesex.pdf
Stoneham received $3.4M. $1.4M less than Wakefield, $3.7M less than Winchester, $4.3M less than Melrose, $6.5M less than Reading and a whopping $42M less than Malden. No matter what formula you use or excuses one can come up with this is bee ess!
Speaker of the House DeLeo's Winthrop with a student population of 1970 receives $5.2M. Almost $2M more than Stoneham's 2400 students. Katherine and Jason will argue they got us more than last year. Well, again more bee ess!
Its time someone looked out for the taxpayers of Stoneham instead of the platitudes coming from our representatives.
Tom Boussy
4:22 pm on Thursday, March 14, 2013
Mark, to be clear, the new middle school is an addition to the existing Central Elementary School, so in 2014 at the completion of this project, we will have three elementary schools instead of four, one Middle School and one High School
Paul Rotondi
11:24 am on Saturday, March 16, 2013
The Facts the proponents don’t tell you.
1. Over a 100 communities have voted no including Winchester, Wakefield, Reading, Woburn, Lynnfield, Saugus and Sudbury. Over 50% of the cities and towns in Mass haven’t even thought it was worth taking a vote.
2. Only one community has voted to allow Blending of funds. The Selectmen and the School Committee have agreed to allocate funds from new Revenue and the non-recurring revenue reference here to be applied to desperately needed renovations to the High School, If the CPA committee diverts this money to their trust there will either be no renovations to the high school or the tax payers will be asked for another Debt Exclusion.
3. Seven of the nine members of the Community Preservation Committee are appointed by the Selectmen, and two of the proponents are running for Selectman. This will become nothing but a slush fund to award favors to special interests. Just another form of “earmark”
Vote No
Russ
4:44 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Honestly stated, it is a tax increase with the potential to triple according to the authorizing statute. It is every bit the proposition 2 1/2 override. A clear decision here when you consider that many of the proponents receive their income from the public trough.
Rachel Meredith-Warren
2:49 pm on Thursday, March 21, 2013
The forum TONIGHT (3/21) to get the facts about CPA starts at 7pm at the Stoneham Middle School. Please go and make up your own mind.
George Georgountzos
12:56 am on Friday, March 22, 2013
I could not make tonight's meeting. Did anyone get up to speak AGAINST the CPA, or was it dominated by only the proponents of this initiative? Was there an actual debate or was it a one-sided cacophony highlighting the merits of this override?
Cindy Hemenway
9:01 am on Monday, March 25, 2013
Vote YES for CPA. Why should affluent communities get all the money for town projects? CPA has been around since 2000. 155 communities have voted in favor of CPA. Voting in favor of CPA means improvements for the Senior Center, the library, the fire station, open space and recreation, etc. Folks, we are talking about $48 a year. We have 5 Dunkin Donuts in Stoneham. Let's take some of the money spent on lattes and spend it on improving our great town of Stoneham!