Relative to amending the Community Preservation Act to include an extra percentage surcharge for accessibility
Summary
H3967 would amend the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act (Chapter 44B of the General Laws) to create an optional new local section, Section 7A, that cities and towns may adopt through the existing local approval process. If a municipality’s legislative body approves the measure and voters accept it at the ballot, the city or town could impose an additional 1% surcharge on real property taxes, separate from the existing CPA surcharge structure. The bill also specifies that this surcharge would not count toward the tax cap calculation under Chapter 59, section 21C.
The bill is designed to direct a portion of Community Preservation Fund revenue toward accessibility. Municipalities that adopt Section 7A would be required to add one additional member to the community preservation committee, and that member must come from a disability commission or another municipal body related to disability or accessibility, if available. In each fiscal year, the legislative body would have to spend or reserve at least 10% of annual Community Preservation Fund revenues for improving the physical accessibility of public indoor and outdoor spaces.
Impact
The bill would amend Chapter 44B of the General Laws by adding a new local-option surcharge and spending requirement tied to the Community Preservation Act. It would affect municipalities that already accept CPA sections 3 through 7 by allowing them to adopt an additional real property surcharge and by imposing a dedicated accessibility spending mandate. It would also alter local community preservation committee membership and create a new statutory obligation to prioritize accessibility projects within the Community Preservation Fund.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text, the measure appears generally supportive of accessibility and disability inclusion, with a policy focus on ensuring CPA funds are used for public access improvements. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. The structure of the bill suggests it is intended as a local-option enhancement rather than a statewide mandate, which may make it more palatable to municipalities that want to prioritize accessibility.
Contention
The main likely points of contention are the additional 1% real property surcharge and the requirement that at least 10% of Community Preservation Fund revenues be reserved for accessibility projects. Property owners and municipalities concerned about tax burden or reduced flexibility in CPA spending may view the surcharge and earmark as restrictive, while disability advocates and accessibility proponents would likely support the dedicated funding and committee representation. Another possible issue is that the bill requires voter approval, so local acceptance could vary widely and may be debated on a community-by-community basis.