Before we begin, a word.

Often enough, something will happen in town or I'll find something weird at the Millbury Historical Society and my wife will say "don't you wish you were still doing your column?" Well, yes and no is usually my answer, but I've heard myself saying "yes" in my head a little more often later. So while this has been fallow, I feel like there's room in the world for a Millbury-focused look at things. I'll be posting / emailing regularly, but by "regularly" it will be "when I feel like it" as opposed to weekly or when it feels important. Sometimes it will be current events and commentary, others weird observations, and more still fun historical stuff.

If you're on board, thanks for reading. If you're not interested, I won't be offended if you unsubscribe. And if you want to share a story, I'd love to provide a place for it - just shoot me an email. I'm also adding some of my better columns from the Chronicle era into the archives here - I'm a much better writer now than I was in 2018, yikes...

As for this, it is a collection of my five(!) columns on the Community Preservation Act from 2019. I went into it a skeptic, and walked out open to being a believer. With the recent release of the Millbury Housing Plan draft report, this set of articles felt like a good re-start to a conversation we need to have in Millbury, and maybe get more people to the "yes" I've ultimately landed on.

These were originally published in January of 2019.

Part One: Joseph Laydon, former Grafton Town Planner

Millbury is looking ahead to a discussion on the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in the coming months and beyond in the aftermath of the Clearview debate this past fall. The act, signed into Massachusetts law in 2000, gives communities the option to create, by referendum, a fund to protect open space, historic preservation, outdoor recreation, and affordable housing. The fund, managed in part by a local committee, receives some matching funds from the state and allows communities to levy a 3% property tax surcharge to help fund these projects. After the failed Clearview purchase, the CPA was cited as an option in the future for properties like it to avoid the politics of a debt exclusion.

Personally, I am a skeptic of the CPA at first glance, but I recognize as well that I do not know enough about it to make a truly informed decision. So, while things are a little slow in the new year, I will spend the next few weeks talking to people about the CPA. As neither Millbury nor Sutton are CPA communities, we cannot base anything against each other’s experience, but Grafton, to the west of Millbury, is a nearby town that adopted the CPA shortly after its passage in the state. A town with a new schools, big budget items like the library on the horizon, and high property taxes, I felt that reaching out to people there to learn about their experience was a good starting point.

 I spoke with Joseph Laydon. A Blackstone Valley resident for his entire life, he has spent the last five years as the town planner in Grafton, and really likes the CPA.  “One of the nice things [about the CPA],” he said, was that “it really lets the town move forward” on issues the legislation seeks to address, citing specific needs for affordable housing in Grafton but also the historic character of many of our communities in the area. He noted that town meeting often makes it difficult to build a consensus on many of these issues given the competing goals of the citizens, and the CPA takes some of the edge off, acting as “a consistent resource.”

Laydon noted a few CPA projects he has been involved with. In a prior planning role in Wayland, the town used CPA funding for a cemetery improvement project, and one of Grafton’s major CPA projects has been the One Grafton Common project in the center (which, if you head through Grafton at all, you know is gorgeous). Laydon is clearly looking at the CPA as a way to get to the state’s 10% affordable housing benchmarks (Grafton is at 5%, doing better than Millbury or Sutton), but sees it as an option for a lot of different challenges in Millbury and Sutton.

 I asked him directly about the Clearview situation, and he did share an interesting fact that the CPA funds can be bonded against future receipts. For example, the CPA could have been used to pay a bond from the incoming CPA funds (back of the envelope, assuming a $40 million tax receipt in town at a 3% surcharge, the town would be taking in around $1.2 million in CPA funds, which the Clearview purchase would have taken approximately 12-14% of that funding over the life of the loan, taking a smaller portion of the pie over time). Laydon also noted that the CPC funds still need to go to town meeting as a separate article, however, so even if we had the money banked and ready to go for Clearview, the town would still get a say as to whether it was a good investment for the funding. As part of the debate was, as Selectman Scott Despres put it, 120 acres for $3 million or 90 acres for free, there would still be a robust and necessary debate.

Accountability was also a question I had, and Laydon was clear that the board cannot simply be reactive. The act establishes a board with up to nine people, including ad hoc representatives from the town alongside existing elected/appointed officials, and are tasked with having a plan forward for the use of funds and the board. “It’s an inclusive group to start with,” says Laydon, noting that the board has a lot of buy in from various areas and again citing the town meeting approvals.

Laydon finished our conversation by talking about how the area has changed over the years. In places with open space considerations and historic landmarks in particular, “towns need resources and we need funds” to preserve them, he says. As Millbury and Sutton are both leery of another tax, I had to ask about that in response. Laydon lives with his family in Northbridge, a town that just accepted the CPA this year, and he advocated strongly for it even with the tax hit he would absorb. As for the tax impact in Grafton, he does not hear about it from the town and believes they have had the surcharge for so long that the hit is minimal. Even if he were not a town planner, he believes he would be in favor of this for his community. “It can be difficult to explain… hard to consolidate to a concise, three sentence ‘this is what we can do’,” he says, but he believes the key is getting all the right information.

Information is key, and I found my conversation with Mr. Laydon very informative. In the coming weeks, I will be talking with more people and getting some more information in hopes that our towns can have a real conversation about what to expect – both imminently for Millbury and perhaps the future for Sutton. Next week, I will be talking with a former Millbury resident who serves on their local committee to see how it works from a citizen perspective.

Part Two: Jim Bishop, Oak Bluffs Community Preservation Committee

When engaging in some initial discussion on Facebook regarding the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in Millbury, one gentleman chimed in with his thoughts on the topic coming from his experience on his town’s Community Preservation Committee (CPC). The board, which by statute consists of ad hoc/at-large members of the town alongside elected and appointed officials, help make decisions and decide what the funds allocated by the Act go toward. In my second week of a deep dive into the CPA, I talked to Jim Bishop of Oak Bluffs on Martha’s Vineyard, a member of his local CPC board.

Jim grew up in Worcester and spent a lot of his younger years in Millbury, at one point marrying a woman from the area. He reflected on a number of his memories from Millbury during his time here, noting that he hung out “at the hotel” (both the Belfont and the St. Charles, I would later learn) and talking about the Central Diner. A contractor by trade, he did some work on Martha’s Vineyard, fell in love with Oak Bluffs, and stayed on the island through today. 

Oak Bluffs, one of the communities on the Vineyard, has its own share of struggles. Given that it is off the mainland, Jim said often that it can feel like a whole other world. With the island’s reliance on tourism, it means a big concern for affordable housing in the area, and that has become a major priority of the CPC in the community. When Jim picked up the phone, he laughed, as he was in the process of printing information on a $100,000 grant to study building 40-60 affordable housing units in the area. “As a town, it’s impossible” to take care of these projects without the aid of the CPA, he says.

Jim laid out some issues facing Oak Bluffs, and I see a lot of similarities to Millbury and Sutton: lower-than-expected funding from the state for schools, a lack of affordable housing, new people and families moving into the area, recreational needs, and a lot of older and historic buildings that drive people into the town. But Jim is convinced the CPA is the way out for a lot of these concerns. Oak Bluffs received $1.6 million in funding for this budget year, which includes close to a 50% match from the state, and Jim said they are very proactive about ensuring they get the state contributions they are entitled to.

One story he told me involved shared recreation space at one of the schools. Jim was clear with me that the money needed to be used for shared spaces, not just the school (in other words, a theoretical CPC could replace the turf at Windle Field in Millbury, as the whole town has access, but not build a closed-to-the-public gymnasium as part of some new construction). There are some weedy, complicated issues, but the Oak Bluffs CPC works closely with their town counsel. “You have to be careful about how you spend the money,” says Jim, but “town counsel is pretty good” at handling those use cases and making sure the town is in-line with what it wants to do.  One program involved shared block grants to repair homes and keep people in their homes, a key aspect of life in an area where any existing real estate is scooped up by rich investors looking for summer homes and rentals on the island. 

The CPC also works closely with the Oak Bluffs Town Manager, both to find good projects and to act as a check on his power. Jim has mostly positive things to say about the Oak Bluffs Town Manager, but also cited funding that the Town Manager wanted to use CPA funds for that the board successfully pushed back on. The CPA, Jim cites, allows the town to handle these significant issues that are so specific to the Vineyard, and that collaboration with leadership allows for out-of-the-box thinking on how to best utilize available resources.

“We bought into it, and it works,” says Jim. He went into the CPA a skeptic, but now considers himself a true believer. Since unused funds cycle back to the CPC, and since Town Meeting needs to approve the expenditures, Jim did not have much negative to say about the law. “You have to look at it as a tool,” he says, and that comes with its own challenges. “I like my CPC. Would I like somebody else’s? I don’t know… We’re efficient out here [because] we have to be.”

We spoke for about a half hour, and when I got off the phone with Jim, my thoughts went back to the Central Diner, previously in the center of Millbury. We lost that historic boxcar diner a few years ago, and, while Millbury and Sutton have both lost their share of historic buildings over the years, the Central Diner was one of those losses that really bothered a lot of people in Millbury and acted as a net loss to the community at large - after all, does Millbury even have a consistent breakfast place anymore, never mind one with such a unique and specialized history? 

The common theme I am hearing so far is that the CPA is something that is very useful, but really needs to be monitored a bit. The CPA might not work everywhere, but in towns with a lot of history, a lot of open space, and some difficulties in finding funding for the basics (never mind these extras), people seem to like it. Next week, I speak with someone who successfully opposed adoption of the CPA in his municipality. 

Part Three: Gary Vecchio, Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association

Note: Gary Vecchio passed away in 2022 after a short battle with cancer. His advocacy and enthusiasm earned his obituary getting the article treatment in the Telegram and Gazette; we should all be so well-regarded.

With the amount of time I have spent looking at the Community Preservation Act (CPA) in the last few weeks, I have run into one area of difficulty in that there have been few recent proposals to join the CPA, and fewer visible and vocal opponents available to speak about their opposition. It is important to see all sides of this issue, especially when so much of the discussion centers itself on the tax increase inherent in the act’s adoption above all else. Thankfully, I did have an opportunity to talk with one CPA opponent who was able to outline his opposition and associated work.

Gary Vecchio has been a staple of Worcester politics for decades. The president and founder of the Shrewsbury Street Neighborhood Association, the retired teacher has lived in the neighborhood for his whole life and watched as the area, and Worcester, has changed. As a preservationist by nature, he sees the need for historic preservation on Shrewsbury Street (arguably the root of the restaurateur revival in Worcester) alongside the numerous landmarks and locations throughout the city. With that noted, however, Vecchio is clear in his point of view: municipalities do not need the CPA to preserve their history, their open space, or their affordable housing.

Vecchio cites the ongoing renovations at Union Station as a clear example of the lack of need. While he acknowledged the role the MBTA and the state played in the current repairs, he notes the amount done without the CPA. I asked him about preserving the history and character on Shrewsbury Street, and he had the same answer: the CPA would not have made much of a difference. If you drive down Shrewsbury Street, it is hard to disagree with him, as many of the oldest buildings have been retrofitted for modern use and many original diners and longstanding businesses still exist. I admit to not knowing for sure how those preservation efforts have gone down over the years, but with Vecchio at the helm of his Neighborhood Association for nearly two decades, I am inclined to defer to his judgement.

Still, this did not stop CPA advocates from attempting to get the initiative on the ballot in Worcester last year. Vecchio, well-known for his work on tax issues in the city, is opposed to the CPA on a whole but specifically opposed the process in which CPA advocates attempted to make it happen. The pro-CPA contingent wanted the City Council to place it on the ballot, and Vecchio’s group requested that those who wanted the CPA gather signatures for support. The Council eventually demanded that signatures be gathered; the issue never came up again and did not make the ballot. 

On a whole, though, Vecchio is negative about the justifications. “It just didn’t seem to make sense,” he said, noting that, “come tax classification time, everyone says taxes are too high.” With Worcester’s existing dual tax rate (a key reason Primetals is moving to Sutton), Vecchio remains unconvinced that the city can even afford to do the CPA. Additionally, Vecchio noted that Worcester already does a good job on the issues the CPA addresses – not only on historic preservation, but on open space and especially affordable housing. Vecchio notes that Worcester is well above the 10% threshold set by the state for affordable housing (although statistics do show that the affordable housing inventory lags behind the number of those theoretically seeking it), and he is convinced that the bulk of the CPA funding in Worcester would go toward more affordable housing that he believes the city does not need.

For Vecchio, in a city with tax problems already, “it just didn’t seem to make sense.”  It is “not a big need” for what advocates want compared to what the city could benefit from, and Vecchio notes that the match average is around 11% from the state (the Telegram and Gazette reported 11.7%, but to the Department of Revenue has the official 2018 projection at 17.2%, down from a reported 20.6% match projection for 2016; the 2019 projection is 19.2%). “Most people agree that it will continue to decline,” argues Vecchio, and looking ahead to the legislative priorities of the new year, I do not disagree.

Vecchio is sympathetic, but believes “the time to get in was 15 years ago,” and he finds it harder to justify now. Looking at Millbury, Vecchio says he “always saw Millbury as a blue collar town,” and while he “[doesn’t] claim to be an expert… most of the communities [that adopted the CPA] appear to be more affluent.” His perception is correct: a Harvard University study through the Kennedy School of Government from 2007 (“The Massachusetts Community Preservation Act: Who Benefits, Who Pays?” by Robin Sherman and David Luberoff) supports the idea that affluent communities benefit more than poorer ones, based on the 120 communities that had signed on as of 2006. (175 communities are CPA communities now.)

We can debate whether Millbury or Sutton qualify as affluent (Millbury’s average household income is slightly below the state average; Sutton’s well above), but the concerns Vecchio raises remain valid for our towns regardless of our relative wealth and especially in regards to the tax discussion. On the other hand, with the amount of history (a key motivator for Millbury residents per the Master Plan open sessions) and open space concerns for both communities, is the tradeoff worth it? Next week, we will hear from Laurie Connors, Planning and Development Director in Millbury and one of the chief advocates for adopting the CPA in Millbury.

Part Four: Laurie Connors, former Millbury Town Planner

With the establishment of an ad hoc exploratory committee by the Millbury Board of Selectmen (at the time of my writing, nine spots are available with room to expand if demand is there - get on it!), my timing to speak with Laurie Connors, Millbury Town Planner, about the Community Preservation Act (CPA) could not have been better. I was happy that she graciously gave me 20 minutes to discuss the topic, never mind the hour we ended up with, as the incredibly busy Connors is probably the most vocal advocate of the CPA in this newspaper’s coverage area, so I felt it was important to get the argument straight from her mouth without town government structures muddying the waters.

My first question: what is your elevator pitch for the CPA? Connors was clear: “My tasks,” she said (referring to things like zoning, housing, open space, the master plan, and so on), are “difficult-to-impossible… to accomplish because of a lack of funding.” She offered some examples: repairs to Woolie World at Washington Park, the Mount Ararat restoration, Butler Farm, many smaller parks with identical riding toys for kids; all projects that are expensive, town-owned spaces that could be funded partially or entirely by CPA funds. 

Without the CPA, she explained, the town must resort to grants for funding. Many grants require a municipal match (either through tax dollars or donation), and it often takes a year to raise those matching funds. To be clear, our town planner is putting in the work on this through multiple fundraisers, public appeals, and going hat-in-hand to many local businesses to help make the ends meet. As Connors puts it, however, she is very busy and the town has “so many needs” to address.

Woollie World came up numerous times during our conversation. There was a restoration of sorts done approximately five years ago to the playground area, with “100% of the work with volunteers” with some minor Department of Public Works help. Still, even with the work done, it is not enough for the structure itself that is the centerpiece of the playground. According to Connors, the structure itself is falling apart, and, even with minor repairs, it would still cost up to $20,000 to repaint, and a total replacement would cost $120,000. 

With a Planning budget of approximately $4,000 (after salaries), Connors rhetorically asked “how do I get this project done?” We spoke a few days after the announcement that Millbury did not receive an expected grant for Americans With Disabilities Act funding for the town center restoration project. This was another example for Connors in which, sans this grant, the CPA funds could be used to preserve some open space while other grant money for this project could be spent on ADA compliance. Instead, she is back to the drawing board to find a new solution to this time-sensitive project.

Connors views the CPA as a tool with a built-in check. Massachusetts General Law “specifically states how the funds will be managed,” and Connors sees the greatest benefit of the CPA as “the [municipal match].” She cited the percentage of the state match (detailed in last week’s column), but additionally noted that the match from the state increases based on how high the surcharge is and prior receipts. For example, communities with the maximum 3% surcharge received approximately 30% of the match in the prior fiscal year. “I want to have that match,” said Connors while noting that she is not too concerned with what surcharge the town sets, “because it is a grant to the community every year.”

Connors and I also spoke at length about the historic preservation issues we face in town. “People overwhelmingly say how important it is to preserve our character,” and she sees the CPA as a major tool for that goal. As I am personally invested in historic preservation in town, she and I both talked about numerous properties and areas that the CPA could have theoretically helped with, such as the building on Elm Street next door to the post office or a historic building in West Millbury torn down last year. 

But Connors also acknowledges how the town’s focus steers away from historic preservation or even affordable housing, understanding that “people largely care about the things that affect them directly.” For example, she has children in the school system and she knows planning projects “can’t compete” with school needs.  “Not only am I the planning director,” says Connors, “I’m also a resident, and I want good things for this town… to me, [the CPA] is an answer to these questions” about how to improve Millbury. With that said, “the final decision will be made by the Millbury voters,” and, as she put bluntly, “I serve the people” and will be bound by the decision they make. This is why she wanted the ad hoc committee, to gather opinions and make the process as transparent as possible. What the result will be from the discussion remains to be seen (“This isn’t a foregone conclusion,” says Connors), but our town planner is not shy about her opinion: “It won’t be a surprise… that this is a solution to a problem I have seen since 2004.”

So what now? With an ad hoc committee being formed (seriously, dear readers - APPLY) and a lot of information out there, it is up to us as citizens, as residents, and as advocates to take the next steps. In next week’s column, I will share my thoughts from the last four weeks as an individual and resident who has learned so much about a topic that could have as much impact on his interests as it does on his wallet.. 

Part Five: A Conclusion

This space has been consumed by the Community Preservation Act throughout the month of January, and for good reason. The CPA will be one of the defining discussions of the next year or more in Millbury, and I have heard from a couple of Sutton readers who are looking toward the debate in Millbury as a measuring stick for a possible Sutton approach.

So, needless to say, it is crucial that we get this right.

I came into the discussion about the CPA as a skeptic. On a basic, personal level, I see my property tax bill every year. On a more town-wide, observational level, I see how allergic to tax increases Millbury tends to be. But on an importance level, we have so much history in this town, both well-known and little-known. We have so many trails, so much open space, so many neglected parks. We lack affordable housing options. We are a town that is both doing great and could be doing a lot better, and the CPA provides a valuable and easy pathway away from these problems.

My initial main concern was oversight. A big problem with the proposal, as I first understood it, was granting so much extra power to a town government that I do not feel deserve it now, never mind whoever may be in power in the future. The fact, however, that there would be a dedicated board, per state statute, that requires members from the community alongside elected/appointed officials of interest does a lot to quell my fears. It is one thing to have a pool of cash the Board of Selectmen or the Town Manager can simply dip into, it is another to have a board that must authorize these purchases and then gain approval at Town Meeting. That is a significant plus for me.

The tax surcharge was, and continues to be, a secondary-but-significant concern. That the surcharge does not have to be 3% is a big deal, but it has to be at least 1%, and many residents already feel the squeeze. Given Millbury’s overreliance on residential property taxes, I do not know how a case can be made for a 1% surcharge, never mind the 3% surcharge benefits.

The biggest negative for me, however, is the state match. The most disappointing thing I learned during this project was how low the average match from the state has been. And yes, even getting a 30% match of “free money” from the state is more than what we have now, but without any statutory guarantees, we are asking a lot more from our residents than we are likely to get back, which does not seem fair.

Overall, the problem here is an informational one. I probably spent 12-15 hours in total over the last month researching the CPA, talking to people on all sides, and writing about my experience. To expect anyone else to do this sort of research and cast an informed vote is asking a lot, but this research is what has gotten me from a skeptical “no” to a fence-sitting “well, maybe.” After all this time, I am still not sure what I would do if a ballot with the question was placed in front of me. If I cannot come to a conclusion yet, advocates have a lot of work to do to inform people who cannot realistically put in the research effort themselves.

My fear is that the debate will simply boil down to taxes. We have a core group of people in Millbury who are opposed to any sort of tax increases, which I understand in my heart but find counterproductive in my head (and I am a pretty conservative guy politically who thinks taxes, in most cases, are too high). We also have room in the budget to make things work - the schools still have an outsized portion of our budget, a road maintenance plan in will reduce infrastructure budget pressures, and if people in town like Town Manager David Marciello and Selectman Chris Naff put their words about expanding our commercial base into action, it can result in some real change. Selectman Jon Adams has also expressed thoughts that we could create some funds that could serve as a pool to engage in CPA-style projects; a good idea that would require a lot more oversight than we currently have.

I also worry about how this debate will be framed. For example, Town Planner Laurie Connors expressed both at the Board of Selectmen meeting and with me that not having a CPA makes her job harder, and, while true, may not be convincing for residents unhappy with town administration and representation. I also worry that the new Community Preservation ad hoc board will be viewed as having a foregone conclusion as opposed to a group dedicated to honest research and information. The town leadership needs to do more to make the truth explicitly clear.

One of the most important things we need to do is be able to say “I don’t know.” And that is ultimately where I am at on the CPA. After all the research and conversations… I just don’t know. That is okay, and it is okay if you do not know either. But to be a firm yes or no based solely on considerations like taxes or mistaken ideas about power and oversight will not meaningfully advance the discussion. In a debate that will largely define the direction of this town, it is crucial we speak directly to each other from a place of knowledge and information rather than retreat to our tribal, gut instincts. Our future depends on it.

Jeff Raymond is a 40-plus year resident of Millbury and loves the town even if it doesn't always love him back. He also writes at MassTransparency.org and can be reached at jeff.raymond@bramanvilletribune.com or Twitter/X (@jeffinmillbury) or BlueSky (@jeff.masstransparency.org)