Having served four years as an elected member of the Community Preservation Committee including two years as chairwoman, the recent discussion on increasing the CPA Property Tax surcharge to 3 percent caught my attention. This idea has come up twice in the past and has been rejected by the voters.
Why raise the CPA surcharge to 3 percent? Is it because we want more state money that is obtained by the state partial match?
What do we want the money for? Over the past four years, no projects have been denied by the Community Preservation Committee for lack of funds. We have funded the Conservation Fund almost every year since the CPA was accepted by the town of Harvard, providing the fund with more than $1 million—they still have a $900,000 balance. We have also contributed $760,000 to the Affordable Housing Trust and another $150,000 to other affordable housing initiatives and boards in town.
We need to also keep in mind that once the funds are raised via the CPA Property Tax surcharge, their use is restricted to preserving historic sites, conservation—preserving open space, outdoor recreation—and affordable housing.
Harvard already has many upcoming financial challenges. The town is currently looking at a number of large projects which, if passed, will be debt funded and added to our property tax bills. The projects include the Hildreth House building renovation and addition, a replacement for Bromfield House for the schools’ central administration offices, addition and/or renovations to the DPW building and replacing the K-wing section of the Hildreth Elementary School. When you consider the impact on the tax bill of the debt for these projects and for the Town Hall construction combined with the need to fund other capital items and to continue funding our OPEB liability, why would you want to increase the tax burden even further by tripling the CPA surcharge?
Debbie Ricci
East Bare Hill Road
