Last week, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts released its ruling in the case of George Caplan & others vs. Town of Acton. The decision has ramifications for every city and town that has adopted the Community Preservation Act, which uses taxpayer money to fund projects relating to open space, historic resources and community housing.
In Hampshire and Franklin counties, Amherst, Belchertown, Conway, Deerfield, Easthampton, Hadley, Hatfield, Leverett, Northfield, Northampton, Pelham, Shutesbury, Southampton, Sunderland and Whately have all adopted the act.
At issue were two CPA grants approved at Acton’s Town Meeting but contested by a group of residents opposed to the use of tax money in connection with a church. One grant for $51,237 would restore stained glass windows in the Acton Congregational Church, an active affiliate of the United Church of Christ with a congregation of more than 800 members. The church stands in the Acton Centre Historic District. The other grant for $49,500 would fund a master plan for the historic preservation of the church and two adjacent historic buildings that the church owns and rents out.
The church’s contention was that it lacked the funds both to preserve its buildings and to serve the needs of its congregation without financial assistance from the town.
The court applied a three-factor test: 1) whether the motivating purpose of the grant is to aid the church; 2) whether the effect of the grant substantially aids the church, and 3) whether the grant violates the anti-aid amendment, triggered long ago by tensions arising from public support for religious institutions.
The court barred the disbursement of the stained glass grant, in part because it would allow the church to spend its money on its religious mission instead of shouldering the burden of building maintenance. The justices sent back to the lower court the master plan grant, which is far broader in its scope. So, both sides could claim victory.
The jurists emphasized that they do not impose a categorical ban on the grant of public funds to a church “solely because it is a church” and cited a case in Missouri that upheld a government grant for a new playground surface made from recycled tires at a church preschool and day care center. Rather, under the three-factor test, whether a church can receive such a grant depends on the grant’s purpose, its effect and the risk that it might run afoul of the anti-aid amendment.
Across the state, more than 300 projects involving religious institutions already have been funded through the CPA program including, in our area, the restoration of stained glass windows at churches in Northampton and Northfield. With this precedent, it seems clear that stained glass window restoration will not pass the smell test for future CPA disbursements.
Less clear is the fate of other structural repairs to historic structures in active use as religious institutions. If paying for structural improvements allows the church to fund its religious mission instead of shoring up its building, this could be construed as failing the three-part test.
Voters could still approve CPA grants that benefit active religious institutions at town meeting, but now there is a greater likelihood that dissenting residents would be emboldened to contest such grants. This would tie up the money and involve the town in an expensive lawsuit.
Thus, the ruling could have a chilling effect on such grants from now on, making it harder for ailing historic church buildings to get financial support from its local taxpayers.