Fiscal 2023 DIF Account

Community Preservation Act: IT's Back!!

 The Massachusetts Community Preservation Act (CPA) authorizes municipalities to apply a surcharge on property taxes to generate funds for open space, historic preservation, affordable housing, and outdoor recreation. Locally generated funds are partially matched by the Commonwealth’s Community Preservation Act Trust, which is funded by fees collected on recordings at Massachusetts Registries of Deeds. Local adoption of the CPA requires a community-wide vote.

  Local adoption of the CPA requires a community-wide vote. In spring 2018, a coalition of organizations formally called on the Worcester City Council to approve a ballot question seeking adoption of the CPA and a 1.5% surcharge. What is the CPA and what would its adoption mean for Worcester?

Worcester Research Board Report on CPA 

In 2018 the City Council voted against putting it on the ballot.    Not this Council, they voted in favor. 

In case you missed it:

CPA going on the ballot

The council with little fanfare Tuesday voted 7-3 to approve a citizen petition request to put the Community Preservation Act on the November ballot. Supporters of the effort said Tuesday more than half the state's municipalities have adopted the act, which allows cities and towns to place a small surcharge on property taxes and use that revenue to fund affordable housing, open space, recreation, and historic preservation. 

Former Mayor Joseph C. O'Brien, a CPA supporter, stressed that the council was not being asked to support the measure, only to put it on the ballot. Having the council put the question on the ballot was the preferred method for supporters of the act Tuesday; O'Brien said the other would be to collect 6,000 signatures. 

A few residents Tuesday said they didn't support putting the act on the ballot; residents can't afford any more tax increases. At-large Councilor Donna Colorio said having the council put the question on the ballot for the group essentially circumvented the democratic process of gathering signatures. 

Ann Lisi, a CPA supporter, said low and moderate income residents, along with seniors, would be exempt, and the exemption would only be on the first $100,000 in property value.




Anonymous said…
When this came before the Council did they ask questions and not approve it. From your post it looks like they just passes it without any conversation with the exception of Colorio commenting on the fact that this group should gather signatures instead of just having the City Council just voting it. People, especially business owners, should read the Research Bureau report focusing on the conclusion and ask what the Chamber intends to do.
Bill Randell said…
They did not have to collect signatures to put the CPA on the ballot. Our City Council simply approved the petition so now it will be on the ballot in November...

If they get enough votes then your taxes are going.

Anonymous said…
I just saw the old Telegram article you posted. Joe O'Brien's motto is, if you don't succeed try try again!
Anonymous said…
CPA tax increases are only the beginning for the current council.
And that’s even if the Polar Park financial drain isn’t as great as it probably is (spoiler alert: it’s worse or else you’d be hearing about its success to the budget as opposed to only the fan experience)

There is no amount of your own money that the new councilors believe it really yours. You don’t spdeserve it. You will just waste it on stupid things like a house, food, clothing your kids etc.

You need to be completely dependent on them and have to beg them to give you these things. Line up and say the right buzzwords, or you go without.

But bye, Worcester. Hello Auburn.
Anonymous said…
I have never really complained about how much I pay in taxes until COVID hit. Since then City services have gone down hill and the streets are the worst I have seen in my ten years living in Worcester.
Anonymous said…
You need to watch Tuesday nights City Council meeting and tell me we are at a place where we have the haves and have nots. Someone living on Harding St had an item about residential parking where they live. I assume it is because the City put those parking kiosks everywhere to get money to pay for the ballpark and it must have displaced residential parking. What makes displacing residents parking even worse is the City built a garage in place that only serves the ballpark. Now that is catering to the Haves. To make matters worse, I am sure the person with the parking issue pays taxes while the WooSox pay NO TAXES! This City needs to wake up and decide if they serve the residents and small businesses or a business with millionaire owners from Rhode Island and Boston.