Community Preservation Act

Last updated

The Community Preservation Act (CPA) is a Massachusetts state law (M.G.L. Chapter 44B) passed in 2000. It enables adopting communities to raise funds to create a local dedicated fund for open space preservation, preservation of historic resources, development of affordable housing, and the acquisition and development of outdoor recreational facilities.

Contents

Funds are raised locally for these purposes through imposition of a voter-authorized surcharge on local property tax bills of up to 3%. Several exemptions to the CPA surcharge can also be authorized by voters at the time of adoption. Local adoption of CPA by a community triggers annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund, a statewide fund held by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which the law also establishes. Deed recording fees charged by the state's Registries of Deeds are the funding source for the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund. Revenues from these two sources—the local CPA property tax surcharge and annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund—combine to form a city or town's Community Preservation Fund.

Details of the Law

Adoption of the CPA requires a two-step process: 1) initial approval by the local legislative body OR local certification of a ballot question petition with signatures of 5% of the registered voters of the community, followed by: 2) approval by the majority of the local electorate at a municipal ballot election. Communities must decide during the process of adoption what level of CPA property tax surcharge, up to 3%, to implement, and which of three possible exemptions to the CPA surcharge will be allowed. The voters then authorize, through their acceptance vote at the municipal election at which the CPA ballot question appears, this proposed surcharge level and exemptions.

Once a community has adopted the CPA, it is required to establish a local Community Preservation Committee, composed of from five to nine members, to administer the CPA program locally. There are five required members of a Community Preservation Committee, including a designated representative of each of the five following municipal boards: the Conservation Commission, the Historical Commission, the Planning Board, the Housing Authority and the Board of Park Commissioners. Communities can add up to four additional Community Preservation Committee members at their own discretion, drawn from the public, local government, or other municipal boards or committees. These can be elected or appointed positions, again, at the discretion of the community. The primary statutory responsibility of the Community Preservation Committee is to accept applications for, review, and recommend CPA projects to the community's local legislative body for approval. Only CPA projects that are approved by the local legislative body can receive funds from the community's Community Preservation Fund.

Communities may spend their CPA funds for projects in the following broad programmatic areas: Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing and Outdoor Recreation. The CPA requires each adopting community to annually appropriate, or reserve for future appropriation, at least 10% of its estimated annual CPA fund revenues for open space projects (excluding recreational uses), 10% for historic preservation projects, and 10% for affordable housing projects. The remaining funds each year can be used on projects in any CPA programmatic area. The CPA statute describes in detail allowable uses of the funds within the four broad programmatic purpose areas, determining what projects are eligible for CPA funding.

As of November of 2022, 194 cities and towns (55% of the state's municipalities) have adopted the Community Preservation Act, and no community has ever revoked the program. Because of the rising number of communities participating in the program, legislation was passed in 2019 to increase the recording fees at the Registries of Deeds which provide revenue to the statewide CPA Trust Fund. This increase is expected to raise an estimated $60 million annually for CPA communities each year. (Communities that adopt CPA with the full 3% CPA surcharge are eligible to participate in two additional annual CPA fund distribution rounds each year, and the funding formula within the CPA law governing these rounds allows some smaller, less resource-rich communities to often receive a dollar for dollar annual match for CPA funds raised locally.)

As of June 30th, 2022, the Community Preservation Act has accomplished the following statewide [1] :

   * Over $2.65 billion has been raised for community preservation funding statewide    * 15,069 CPA projects have been approved by local legislative bodies    * More than 10,000 affordable housing units have been created with an additional 16,000 units supported    * 34,204 acres of open space have been preserved    * Over 6,700 appropriations have been made for historic preservation projects    * Over 3,300 outdoor recreation projects have been initiated

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Metropolitan planning organization</span>

A metropolitan planning organization (MPO) is a federally mandated and federally funded transportation policy-making organization in the United States that is made up of representatives from local government and governmental transportation authorities. They were created to ensure regional cooperation in transportation planning. MPOs were introduced by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, which required the formation of an MPO for any urbanized area (UZA) with a population greater than 50,000. Federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through this planning process. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and future expenditures of governmental funds for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive ("3-C") planning process. Statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes are governed by federal law. Transparency through public access to participation in the planning process and electronic publication of plans now is required by federal law. As of 2015, there are 408 MPOs in the United States.

Massachusetts shares with the five other New England states a governmental structure known as the New England town. Only the southeastern third of the state has functioning county governments; in western, central, and northeastern Massachusetts, traditional county-level government was eliminated in the late 1990s. Generally speaking, there are four kinds of public school districts in Massachusetts: local schools, regional schools, vocational/technical schools, and charter schools.

A hotel tax or lodging tax is charged in most of the United States, to travelers when they rent accommodations in a hotel, inn, tourist home or house, motel, or other lodging, generally unless the stay is for a period of 30 days or more. In addition to sales tax, it is collected when payment is made for the accommodation, and it is then remitted by the lodging operator to the city or county. It can also be called hotel occupancy tax, in places like New York city and Texas. Despite its name, it generally applies to the same range of accommodations.

The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) provides financial support for historic preservation projects throughout the United States. The fund is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The fund provides state historic preservation agencies with matching funds to implement the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Texas constitutional amendment election</span>

The 2007 Texas Constitutional Amendment Election took place 6 November 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">75th Oregon Legislative Assembly</span>

The 75th Oregon Legislative Assembly convened beginning on January 12, 2009, for its biennial regular session. All of the 60 seats in the House of Representatives and half of the 30 seats in the State Senate were up for election in 2008; the general election for those seats took place on November 4.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">November 2008 San Francisco general election</span>

The November 2008 San Francisco general elections were held on November 4, 2008 in San Francisco, California. The elections included seven seats to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, one seat to the San Francisco County Superior Court, and twenty-two San Francisco ballot measures.

The Board of Commissioners of Public Lands, otherwise known as BCPL, is a state agency responsible for investing Wisconsin's school trust funds in support of public education, for managing the state's remaining school trust lands, and for maintaining an extensive archive of land records. The agency was established in Article X, Sections 7 and 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, ratified in 1848.

Kentucky Housing Corporation (KHC), the Kentucky state housing agency, was created by the 1972 Kentucky General Assembly to provide affordable housing opportunities. KHC is a self-supporting, public corporation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Housing trust fund</span>

Housing trust funds are established sources of funding for affordable housing construction and other related purposes created by governments in the United States (U.S.). Housing Trust Funds (HTF) began as a way of funding affordable housing in the late 1970s. Since then, elected government officials from all levels of government in the U.S. have established housing trust funds to support the construction, acquisition, and preservation of affordable housing and related services to meet the housing needs of low-income households. Ideally, HTFs are funded through dedicated revenues like real estate transfer taxes or document recording fees to ensure a steady stream of funding rather than being dependent on regular budget processes. As of 2016, 400 state, local and county trust funds existed across the U.S.

Non-profit housing developers build affordable housing for individuals under-served by the private market. The non-profit housing sector is composed of community development corporations (CDC) and national and regional non-profit housing organizations whose mission is to provide for the needy, the elderly, working households, and others that the private housing market does not adequately serve. Of the total 4.6 million units in the social housing sector, non-profit developers have produced approximately 1.547 million units, or roughly one-third of the total stock. Since non-profit developers seldom have the financial resources or access to capital that for-profit entities do, they often use multiple layers of financing, usually from a variety of sources for both development and operation of these affordable housing units.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 2010 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 2, 2010, the same day as the U.S. House elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were three constitutional referendums to amend the Virginia State Constitution. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2002 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 2002 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 5, 2002, the same day as the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were two constitutional referendums to amend the Virginia State Constitution and two government bond referendums. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1992 Virginia ballot measures</span>

The 1992 Virginia State Elections took place on Election Day, November 3, 1992, the same day as the U.S. Presidential and the U.S. House elections in the state. The only statewide elections on the ballot were one constitutional referendum to amend the Virginia State Constitution and three government bond referendums. Because Virginia state elections are held on off-years, no statewide officers or state legislative elections were held. All referendums were referred to the voters by the Virginia General Assembly.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 53</span> 2016 California ballot proposition

Proposition 53 was a California ballot proposition on the November 8, 2016 ballot. It would have required voter approval for issuing revenue bonds exceeding $2 billion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Seattle head tax</span> Repealed tax law in Seattle, Washington, U.S.

The Seattle head tax, officially the employee hours tax (EHT), was a proposed head tax to be levied on large employers in Seattle, Washington, United States. The head tax was proposed in 2017 to fund homeless services and outreach and was set at a rate of $275 annually per employee, with hopes of raising up to $50 million annually.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 13</span> $15 billion bond initiative for educational facility maintenance

Proposition 13 was a failed California proposition on the March 3, 2020, ballot that would have authorized the issuance of $15 billion in bonds to finance capital improvements for public and charter schools statewide. The proposition would have also raised the borrowing limit for some school districts and eliminated school impact fees for multifamily housing near transit stations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> 2020 California ballot measure

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

References

  1. "CPA: An Overview (Community Preservation Coalition)". www.communitypreservation.org.