Lowell subcommittees approve Community Preservation Act funding recommendations and request report on raising surcharge

Lowell subcommittees on Wednesday approved a slate of Community Preservation Act funding recommendations that would allocate CPA dollars to multiple housing and historic‑preservation projects and asked city staff for a formal report on options to change the city’s CPA surcharge and exemptions.

The vote, taken by the joint neighborhood and finance subcommittees, accepted Department of Planning and Development and Community Preservation Committee recommendations to fund housing projects including a Coalition for a Better Acre proposal for Cross Street ($220,000), Mass Mills Phase 4 ($125,000), Suffolk Place LLC ($200,000) and an East End Club residence at West Fourth LLC ($20,000). The subcommittees also recommended historic‑preservation awards including Novus Properties LLC ($125,000 for work at 246.1 Market St.), Saint Anne’s Church ($256,000), New Royal LLC (approximately $200,000 for the Royal Theater/44 Merrimack Street project), Farley White Management (smokestack repairs at Wanalansett Mills, fully funded) and a $75,000 recommendation for repairs at 32 Bridge Street.

The recommendations were approved on a roll call vote after presentations from city staff and project representatives. Councilor Scott moved to forward the recommendations and Councilor Jeunesse seconded; the motion passed by roll call.

Why it matters: CPA money in Lowell supports three buckets — community housing, historic preservation and open space — and local decisions about the surcharge and exemptions directly affect how much revenue the program can allocate and the size of the state match the city receives. At the meeting, Chief Financial Officer Baldwin said statewide matching rules make a change in the surcharge a consequential decision for the city’s ability to access additional state funds.

City planning staff presented details on the housing awards and the reasoning behind recommended amounts. Giovanni Vazrose, assistant city manager and director of planning and a member of the Community Preservation Committee, told the subcommittees that demand this year far exceeded available funds and that committees often reduce requests to amounts that are eligible under CPA rules. “No. Absolutely not. So people request what they wanna request, and at the meeting where the group, discusses what what we're gonna sort of contribute to each of the projects is where we flush out the amount. And then that recommendation is brought forward, to to the subcommittee and through the council. So there are no pre commitments,” Vazrose said, explaining why some applicants received less than they requested.

The East End Club residence award drew questions from Councilor Dakota, who said he recalled a different number and asked why the recommendation was reduced. Planning staff said parts of the applicant’s request were for expenses the committee determined were ineligible under CPA rules, so the award was reduced to cover only eligible costs.

Developers and applicants offered brief presentations. Patrick Tsai, who said he and his brother purchased and are rehabilitating 44 Merrimack Street (the former Royal Theater), described the building’s collapse before their purchase, the stabilization work and plans to create seven housing units plus ground‑floor market space, and thanked the committee for the CPA recommendation. “Your CPA funds, will they've already been spent, but they will will go to good use. And we're we're very grateful,” Tsai said.

On historic preservation, staff emphasized that CPA historic‑preservation awards generally require deed restrictions that protect exterior historic features; those funds do not cover interior finish work. Vazrose told the committee that the Novus Properties award is limited to exterior rehabilitation at a property near the Hamilton Canal Garage and that other historic projects had requested far more than the available budget.

On the policy side, Councilor Noon proposed exploring a change to Lowell’s CPA surcharge — which voters initially approved as a 1% surcharge — including the possibility of increasing it (Noon suggested an additional 0.5 percentage point as one option) or changing exemptions. Chief Financial Officer Baldwin briefed the committee on process and revenue estimates and warned that changes would require a city‑council vote followed by a voter referendum. “So first and foremost, any changes to the surcharge would require first a vote of the council, and then second, another ballot referendum,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin presented several modeled scenarios for annual surcharge revenue (estimates presented by staff): a 2% surcharge with the existing $100,000 residential exemption was estimated to yield roughly $2.3 million annually; a 3% surcharge with the exemption was estimated at about $3.34 million; eliminating the $100,000 residential exemption while keeping the 1% surcharge was estimated to bring the city to about $1.4 million; and including commercial properties under the surcharge with the $100,000 exemption was estimated to produce roughly $1.3 million. Baldwin said staff would provide a written report with these scenarios and additional details for the full council.

Councilors asked staff clarifying questions about how the state match works and whether partial surcharges split between commercial and residential would qualify for higher rounds of state matching. Baldwin said he would follow up with state contacts for confirmation.

The subcommittees also discussed the open space bucket: Vazrose said there were no city‑sponsored open space applications this year, so the portion of funds earmarked for open space will roll over into next year’s availability. He also said staff capacity — with many ARPA and other projects underway — limited the city’s ability to submit additional open space applications this cycle.

Formal outcomes and next steps: the subcommittees approved the CPA funding recommendations and subsequently approved a motion to request a formal report from city staff on surcharge and exemption options for the full council to consider. Staff said developers who did not receive full awards may reapply in future cycles for work that has not yet been completed. The committee also noted existing deed‑restriction requirements for housing and historic‑preservation awards.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn.