Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Community Preservation grant for St. Paul's parish after legal questions about church funding
Summary
Councilors debated whether Community Preservation Act funds can support a historic church envelope assessment; the finance committee recommended $14,500 but, after legal and constitutional questions, the council voted to table the appropriation for further review and memos from the city solicitor.
The Malden City Council on April 15 tabled an order (Paper 74-25) that would have appropriated $14,500 from the Community Preservation Act (CPA) fund for St. Paul's Parish envelope assessment. The finance committee had recommended the appropriation with a condition that any funded work not be used solely for religious purposes.
Councilor McDonald, who presented the committee recommendation, said the parish’s historic building is used for community events in addition to worship and that the committee sought a narrowly tailored award for an exterior envelope assessment. The council heard legal analysis from City Solicitor Seher (first name used in the meeting) who summarized state and federal legal constraints: Massachusetts’ anti-aid/anti-aid-amendment history and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions affect how municipalities may treat applications from religious organizations. The solicitor told the council the legal area "is a minefield" and that recent federal decisions have moved the law in a direction that makes categorical refusals riskier for municipalities.
Councilor Simonelli asked bluntly whether the city is allowed to give money to churches. The solicitor responded that the law is unsettled nationally and that municipalities should proceed cautiously; the finance committee added a condition restricting use of CPA funds for items whose "sole purpose is religious." Several councilors noted the long discussion and legal memos the CPC and city staff reviewed before the recommendation.
After extended debate — including members who cautioned that awarding funds to one house of worship could raise requests from many congregations — Councilor Cica moved to table the appropriation so the council could receive additional legal clarity and briefings; the motion to table was seconded and carried without recorded opposition.
The appropriation remains on the table pending additional legal guidance from the solicitor and further committee consideration. Councilors asked the solicitor to provide memos outlining constitutional risks, precedents (including the Acton litigation referenced in CPC discussion), and recommended language to protect public funds from being used for exclusively religious worship activities.
