📊 CPA Study Committee Presents Findings, Recommends 1% Tax Surcharge

“Opposition Emerges, but Charter Still Compels CPA Placement on Ballot“

At the latest Select Board meeting, the Community Preservation Act (CPA) Study Committee formally presented its long‑awaited report detailing whether Reading should adopt the CPA—a state program that allows cities and towns to add a small property tax surcharge to fund local projects related to open space, recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing.

The committee, formed nearly two years ago, outlined its research, findings, and recommendation at the February 12th meeting:
➡️ Adopt the CPA at a 1% surcharge, with exemptions for commercial/industrial property, low‑income residents, and low/moderate‑income seniors, along with the standard $100,000 property value exemption.

---

Background: What the CPA Is

The CPA is a Massachusetts statute allowing communities to apply a 0.5% to 3% surcharge on property taxes. The revenue must be spent only in one of three categories:

• Open Space & Recreation
• Historic Preservation
• Affordable Housing

Reading is one of the remaining 100 Massachusetts communities not enrolled; 201 of 301 cities and towns have adopted the CPA.

Committee chair Joesph Carnahan outlined the core question:

Does adopting the CPA make financial and strategic sense for Reading?”

---

👥 Committee Composition and Outreach

Members include representatives from:

• Select Board
• Conservation Commission
• Housing Authority and Recreation
• Residents at large

During its study, the committee:

• Met with Reading’s boards and commissions to gather project needs
• Interviewed officials from recently adopted peer communities (Natick and Winchester)
• Examined historic spending and project eligibility
• Reviewed 10 years of CPA financial data statewide
• Spoke with local preservation nonprofits

---

💰 Financial Modeling: What a 1% Surcharge Would Raise

Using FY25 property values provided by the Town Assessor, the committee concluded:

📌 Estimated annual revenue at 1%: ~$1 million

This includes approximately $790K in local surcharge revenue plus a state “match“, which historically averaged 24.9% over the last decade (though only 16.9% in FY26).

📌 Commercial/Industrial exemption cost: ~$64,000

Exempting business properties would reduce revenue by only 6%.

📌 Impact on homeowners

For a typical Reading single-family home:

• After the $100,000 exemption, many households would pay around $80–$120 per year
• Lowest‑value homes often pay less
• Higher‑value homes pay more

Low‑income residents and income‑qualified seniors would pay nothing if recommended exemptions are applied.

---

📈 Why the Committee Supports Adoption

The committee emphasized that Reading already spends about $1 million per year on CPA‑eligible projects—funded through free cash or the operating budget.

Adopting the CPA would:

✔ Free up general fund dollars for core services

Because the CPA would take over funding for many existing projects.

✔ Bring state match dollars to Reading

Right now, every time a Reading property is sold, a fee goes into the statewide CPA Trust Fund—even though Reading receives no benefit.

✔ Support long‑deferred community priorities

Including:

• Trail improvements
• Playground upgrades
• Historic building maintenance
• Open space preservation
• Affordable housing partnerships
• Potential future projects like a splash pad or sports court rehabilitation

✔ Re-establish predictable funding

CPA funds accumulate in dedicated accounts and can be saved or borrowed against for large projects, reducing the need for future debt exclusions.

---

⚠️ Concerns Raised by Select Board Members

While Select Board members praised the quality and thoroughness of the report, several expressed concerns primarily about timing, not the CPA itself.

1. Tax burden stacking

Reading residents face:

• Two major debt exclusions (Killam School + Reading Center for Active Living)
• A likely operating override within the next year

Some board members feared layering the CPA surcharge on top could jeopardize override support.

2. Economic strain on residents

Members worried that even $80–$100 per year could burden some families already struggling with rising taxes.

3. Skepticism that CPA dollars would offset existing spending

Some feared the Town might continue funding projects at current levels and simply add new CPA projects on top.

4. No vote formally taken

Based on the discussion — though no formal vote was taken — the board’s comments suggested that Christopher Haley, Melissa Murphy, and Carlo Bacci were inclined to oppose placing the CPA question on the ballot, while Karen Herrick and Karen Rose‑Gillis expressed support for advancing it. However, under the Town Charter, the Select Board is required to place the article on the warrant regardless, since a duly‑formed subcommittee has requested its inclusion.

---

🗣️ Public Comment: Split but Engaged

Public comment featured:

• Strong support from residents citing long‑term financial benefits, quality-of-life improvements, and senior exemptions
• Concerns about affordability and tax fatigue
• Historical frustration that Reading has been “sending money out of town” into the statewide CPA fund since 2002 without receiving match dollars back

Resident and CPA member Sanford Matathia emphasized:

Had Reading adopted CPA in 2002… our town would have raised over $20 million … including state matching funds totaling in excess of $3.7 million.

---

🗳️ Next Steps in the CPA Adoption Process

The committee submitted a draft warrant article for April 2026 Town Meeting. If Town Meeting approves:

1. Question goes on the November 2026 ballot
2. Residents vote on whether to adopt the CPA
3. If passed:
   • A Community Preservation Committee is established
   • First funds become available in July 2028

The Committee stressed that Town Meeting—not the CPA Committee—will ultimately control all spending.

---