The City Council tabled until its next meeting in March the question of whether to place on the November ballot what to do about the property surcharge that goes to the Community Preservation Act. Homeowners are charged a 1.5 percent surcharge currently. The ballot question would ask if that fee should be reduced to 1.0 percent.

The discussion of the Feb. 6 meeting begins at 1 hour, 19  minutes and 42 seconds. Click here to be taken

to the discussion.

The council was scheduled to meet on March 5, but that is the date of the presidential primary elections. The next available date for a city council meeting has not been set yet.

City Councilor Meg Magrath-Smith, who had been chair of the Community Preservation Act, advocated strongly to leave well-enough along, given that the average surcharge bill is $38.34 a year for the average homeowner. Plus, she said, the first $100,000 of a home’s value is not surcharged.

“You take a little bit of money from a lot of people and you got something and that’s what the CPA does,” she said. “We’re doing really good work with that money.”

• Among the projects the surcharge has helped develop in conjunction with state and federal taxes are:
• Restoration of the stained glass windows in City Hall
• Redevelopment of Anniversary Hill Park
• Restoration of the historic O’Connell building at 480 Hampden Street, where Girls Inc is now located
• Rehabilitation of the Boys and Girls Club playground

The CPA, in essence, does this, according the law, spelled out on its website: “The CPA enables cities and towns in Massachusetts to create a local dedicated fund for open space, historic preservation, community housing, and outdoor recreation projects. Cities and towns that adopt the act also receive funds from the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund each year to help fund these projects.”

More about the CPA here.

The Finance Committee of the City Council had already approved that the ballot question be placed on the ballot, but the discussion among some councilors derailed it back to the table for another full council meeting.

The complete agenda for the Feb. 6 City Council meeting can be seen here.

The documents the councilors received for this meeting, including the letter from Mayor Joshua García to Education Commissioner Jeffrey Riley in which he lambastes the state continuing to control the Holyoke Public schools, is included in the packet here.

reads now, the ballot would ask: “Shall the City of Holyoke amend the current Community Preservation Act real estate surcharge, as established in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of Chapter 44B of the Massachusetts General Laws, and which amendment of such surcharge is permissible pursuant to Section 16 of Chapter 44B of the Massachusetts General Laws, and approved by its legislative body, from 1.5% to 1.0%…”

City Councilor Linda Vacon said that one person’s light fee is another’s heavy lift.

“The taxpayers have been expressing with greater and greater frequency…that their backs are being broken by increasing fees and increasing taxes,” she said. Having said that, she added, “This ballot question goes to the voters; they have the right to have a say about a surtax.”

Councilor David Bartley proposed tabling the agenda item until the next meeting, which passed 9-4.

Given the amount of questions and debate regarding the ballot question, City Council President Tessa Murphy Romboletti once again  implored her colleagues to watch the committee meetings so that council meetings would not be consumed by going over what had already been discussed and clarified in committee meetings.