Executive Summary
On October 20, 2026, the Boston City Council Committee on Community Preservation Act held a public hearing on Docket #1601 to explore increasing the percentage of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds allocated to affordable housing, particularly in light of expiring federal ARPA funds and rising development costs. Director of the Community Preservation Office Thadine Brown provided an overview of the program's nine-year history, noting that CPA funding currently allocates 50% to affordable housing, 20% to historic preservation, 20% to open space and recreation, and retains a 10% flexible reserve. Councilors and stakeholders debated the merits of shifting funds versus expanding the total revenue pool through bonds, state matches, or real estate transfer fees, while affordable housing advocates and open space/historic preservation representatives testified on the critical community needs across all three funding categories.
Order for a hearing to explore raising the percentage of Community Preservation Act funds dedicated to affordable housing (Docket #1601) - Opening Remarks
- Committee Chair Enrique Pepén opened the hearing on Docket #1601, an order sponsored by Councilors Brian Worrell and Miniard Culpepper and referred to the committee on August 26, 2026.
- Councilor Worrell highlighted that Cambridge allocates 80% of CPA funds to housing, while Boston targets 50%. He noted that approximately 40% of CPA-backed housing projects have not broken ground due to rising borrowing and construction costs, compounded by the expiration of federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.
- Chair Pepén noted attendance by Councilors Erin Murphy, Edward Flynn, Sharon Durkan, Brian Worrell, Liz Breadon, John Fitzgerald, Ruthzee Louijeune, and Miniard Culpepper.
Community Preservation Office Presentation (Docket #1601)
- Director of the Community Preservation Office Thadine Brown presented a performance overview covering nine funding rounds since Boston adopted the CPA in 2016:
- Across all rounds, 438 projects have received over $259 million in awards.
- Funding distribution by category stands at 52% ($134+ million across 66 projects) for affordable housing, 24% ($62+ million across 207 projects) for historic preservation, and 24% (165 projects) for open space and recreation.
- State statutory requirements mandate a minimum 10% reserve for each of the three core categories (affordable housing, historic preservation, and open space/recreation), with up to 5% allowed for administration.
- Highlights include $14 million awarded to the Acquisition Opportunity Program (AOP), $21 million to the ONE+Boston first-time homebuyer program aiding over 1,000 buyers, and support for over 2,400 affordable units up to 100% Area Median Income (AMI).
Council Questions to Community Preservation Office Director (Docket #1601)
- Bonding and Allocation Adjustments: Councilor Worrell asked about leveraging CPA revenues via bonding. Director Brown stated that City Treasury previously advised against bonding and preferred operating within annual cash on hand. In response to whether CPA formulas could be adjusted, Brown confirmed the nine-member Community Preservation Committee (CPC) has annual flexibility over the 10% discretionary reserve.
- Project Monitoring and Reversions: Councilor Murphy questioned how unspent grants are handled. Brown explained that withdrawn funds return to the general CPA pool across all categories. Councilor Louijeune noted a recent reversion of $7 million, of which $2 million came from the Boston Open Space Acquisition Fund to consolidate applications.
- Category Impacts and Feasibility: Councilor Flynn expressed concern that increasing the housing percentage would dilute resources for open space and historic preservation, noting the competitive nature of project applications. Director Brown acknowledged that shifting allocations would reduce funds available to the other two categories.
- Rehabilitation of Existing Housing: In response to Chair Pepén, Brown clarified that under Chapter 44B, CPA funds cannot be used to rehabilitate existing housing unless the housing was originally created using CPA funds, though historic preservation grants may fund exterior envelope work on eligible historic buildings.
Public Testimony (Docket #1601)
- Jay Mecham (Boston Harbor Now): Testified in opposition to reducing the open space allocation, highlighting that open space and waterfront resilience projects depend on CPA capital because municipal parks remain deeply underfunded.
- Catherine Davis Wheeler (Boston Preservation Alliance): Urged the committee to reject reductions to historic preservation, noting that CPA is the only dedicated public source for local brick-and-mortar preservation and yields high community impact with lower average grants ($354,000 in FY26) compared to the average cost per public housing unit ($677,000).
- Jeffrey Gagnon (Preservation Massachusetts): Testified that lowering historic preservation from 25% to the statutory minimum of 10% would eliminate an estimated 60% of eligible preservation projects. He advocated increasing total CPA revenue by raising the local property surcharge up to the statutory maximum of 3% rather than pitting categories against one another.
- Rebecca Kemper (Historic Boston Incorporated): Emphasized that historic preservation safeguards naturally occurring affordable housing, particularly as federal historic tax credit rules have become more restrictive.
- Mercy Robinson (South Boston en Acción): Expressed strong support for affordable housing but opposed reducing funds for open space, citing community health, wellness, and youth programming needs in public housing developments.
- Liz Kluse and Orion Kriegman (Boston Food Forest Coalition): Supported increasing affordable housing funding up to 60% by committing the 10% flexible reserve to housing while maintaining the 20% allocation for open space and food forests.
- Public Commenter: Recommended that the City Council implement a comprehensive strategy that includes maximizing city borrowing capacity and advocating on Beacon Hill for additional revenue tools.
Panel on Affordable Housing and Municipal Finance (Docket #1601)
- Adler Bernadin (North Fork Design and Construction):
- Outlined market pressures, citing an annual 4% construction cost escalation, surging commodity prices (lumber, steel), and construction costs ranging between $290 and $400 per square foot.
- Endorsed raising the CPA housing allocation target from 50% toward 80%, stressing that funding models from two years ago fail to close current closing shortfalls.
- Donald Alexis (Caribbean Integration Community Development):
- Supported moving the housing baseline from 50% to 60% and urged intentional inclusion of emerging developers and developers of color who build smaller infill developments faster.
- Steve Poftak (Boston Municipal Research Bureau):
- Reported that through 2025, Boston dedicated 51.4% of CPA expenditures to affordable housing. Moving to an 80% allocation model matching Cambridge would have yielded an additional $65.8 million for housing.
- Noted that programs like linkage and inclusionary zoning are pro-cyclical and stall during market downturns, making counter-cyclical subsidy sources essential.
- Hilary Heiser (Massachusetts Affordable Homeownership Alliance):
- Testified that the ONE+Boston first-time homebuyer program had to reduce its interest rate discount from 2% to 1% for buyers below 80% AMI due to funding depletion.
- Advocated for state legislative advocacy to increase the statewide CPA match, passage of a municipal real estate transfer fee on high-value properties, and increased state capital spending on homeownership.
Council Questions to Panelists and Hearing Adjournment (Docket #1601)
- Subsidies and Development Gaps: Councilor Worrell questioned how subsidy constraints affect homeownership projects. Bernadin and Alexis reported that per-unit construction gaps approach several hundred thousand dollars, and the exhaustion of state Commonwealth Builder funds has stalled projects such as a planned 15-unit homeownership development on Blue Hill Avenue.
- Discretionary Allocations vs. Category Trade-offs: Councilor Culpepper and Councilor Worrell asked panelists where reallocations should come from. Panelists noted the 10% discretionary reserve could be allocated directly to housing without dropping open space or historic preservation below 20%, but emphasized that any further adjustment requires examining historical expenditure backlogs.
- Virtual Public Testimony: A member of the public testified supporting affordable housing revenue but urged rigorous oversight guardrails, including strict demolition safety protocols, air quality monitoring, and commercial relocation assistance for displaced immigrant-owned businesses.
- The hearing was adjourned without a formal vote.