Community Preservation Act Affordable Housing Allocation

At a glance

• What: Docket No. 1601, an order for a hearing to explore raising the percentage of Community Preservation Act (CPA) money dedicated to affordable housing. Sponsored by Councilors Brian Worrell and Miniard Culpepper; referred to the Community Preservation Act Committee (chair Enrique Pepén) on August 26, 2026.
• Where it stands: First hearing held October 20, 2026; the full Council noted on October 21 that the docket remains in committee. No vote and no recommendation; the matter stays in committee. Councilors said they want to keep discussing it and take a position as a body.
• What's next: Follow-up information promised by the Community Preservation office and panelists (see below); the FY28 eligibility form is due out the second week of November; the budget cycle next year is expected to be tight as ARPA money ends.

Current allocation and the proposal

• The nine-member Community Preservation Committee (not the City Council) sets the funding formula at the start of each round: 50% affordable housing, 20% open space and recreation, 20% historic preservation, and a 10% flexible reserve usually split between the two non-housing categories.
• State law requires at least 10% for each of the three categories and allows up to 5% for administration.
• Over nine funding rounds housing received 52% of funds and the other two categories about 24% each. Through 2025 the Boston Municipal Research Bureau put housing at 51.4% over eight years; at Cambridge's 80% level Boston would have spent about $65.8 million (56%) more on housing.
• Sponsors are asking whether the housing share should rise, for example to 60% or 70%, because ARPA housing money (about $240 million) is ending, state and federal housing money is uncertain, construction and borrowing costs are up, and homeownership programs such as One+ Boston have been cut back.
• Raising the CPA property surcharge itself would need a new citywide ballot vote; the office is not aware of any such effort.

Positions heard

• For more housing money: the sponsors; developer Adler Bernard (Norfolk Design and Construction), who supports moving toward 80% with a meaningful homeownership share; Donald Alexis (Caribbean Integration Community Development), who supports more housing money and more support for emerging developers (his position on moving from 50% to 60% is unclear in the captions); Hilary Pizer (Mass Affordable Homeownership Alliance), who wants One+ Boston restored.
• Against changing the formula: Councilors Durkan and Flynn (Flynn: if it is working, do not change it; concern about tying up money in housing that may not be built); Boston Harbor Now; Boston Preservation Alliance (asked the committee to table the idea); Jeffrey Gonyea (said cutting historic preservation toward the 10% minimum would cut about 25 projects a year to about 10); Historic Boston Incorporated; a South Boston community group; the Food Forest Coalition (offered a middle path of moving only the 10% flexible share to housing, 50% to 60%, keeping open space at 20%).
• Look for new revenue instead: Councilor Louijeune (real estate transfer fee estimated at $50 to $100 million a year, borrowing capacity, deeper affordability); Councilor Durkan (lobby for more state CPA matching money); Jeffrey Gonyea (surcharge of up to 3%); Hilary Pizer (state homeownership funding).
• Neutral/data first: Steve Ptak (Boston Municipal Research Bureau), who said the choice is a priority-setting decision and he would need pipeline and five-year spending data to say where money should come from.
• Executive Director Brown said the committee is open to flexibility and wants to keep a balanced approach, noting historic preservation draws the most applications.

Open questions and follow-ups

• Bonding against CPA revenue: the committee declined it a few years ago on Treasury advice; Brown to send the earlier presentation.
• 2020 housing share of 67.9% cited by Councilor Worrell: Brown to check; Ptak said that year's low total spending likely inflated the percentage.
• Dollar amounts for the Acquisition Opportunity Program (about $4 million a year, $5 million requested in FY27), cost of fully restoring One+ Boston (about $10 million, to be confirmed), Cambridge's history of 80%, and per-unit subsidy needed for homeownership projects (Boston about $150,000, Cambridge reportedly $250,000).
• About 40% of CPA-supported housing projects had not started construction, according to Councilor Worrell.

Official minutes record

From the official minutes of the October 21, 2026 City Council meeting, which are the authority on motions and votes; the captions are less exact on tallies.

• Docket No. 1601, the order for a hearing to explore raising the percentage of Community Preservation Act funds dedicated to affordable housing, remains in the Committee on Community Preservation Act. No vote.
• Related: the Council appropriated the Fiscal Year 2027 Community Preservation Fund on September 23, 2026; see Community Preservation Fund Appropriation.

Sources

• 2026-10-21 - City Council (captioned recording)
• Minutes, October 21, 2026: https://boston.legistar1.com/boston/meetings/2026/10/14268_M_City_Council_26-10-21_Meeting_Minutes.pdf
• 2026-10-20 - Community Preservation Act Committee

Discussion time

About 171 minutes across 2 meetings (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Log

• 2026-10-21 - City Council - Pepén reported on the October 20 hearing and the docket stayed in committee; Worrell argued affordable homeownership is not keeping pace and asked why the flexible 10% should not go to housing. Official minutes: No. 1601 remains in the Community Preservation Act Committee.
• 2026-10-20 - 2026-10-20 - Community Preservation Act Committee - First hearing on Docket No. 1601: Community Preservation director's presentation, councilor questions, public testimony (mostly opposed to cutting open space and historic preservation), and a second panel of developers and analysts; no vote.