Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 4/17/2023
HOLYOKE — While Holyoke Mayor Joshua Garcia supports the recently passed ballot question that allows residents to decide whether to lower the Community Preservation Act surcharge from 1.5% to 1%. He has since vetoed the measure in hopes of getting the question on the ballot during the presidential/state election in 2024.
Garcia, through his weekly Mayor’s Update, said while he strongly believes there is unanimous support between all city councilors and himself to allow the voters to decide on this potential change, having the question on the local elections ballot this fall was not the best time to present a big decision involving taxes in comparison to a presidential and state election that will come in 2024.
The City Council voted for the change during its April 4 meeting through a narrow 7-6 vote. The council’s order cited rising utilities, food and heating costs as financial stressors on property owners. The CPA was adopted by Holyoke voters in 2016 and the surcharge added to property tax bills provides funding for historic preservation, low-income housing, land conservation and recreation projects across the city.
Garcia noted after hearing the discussions among the council before taking this vote that there was disagreement from what he observed on which election would be best to present this question to voters.
One specific councilor who spoke up during that meeting was Ward 6 Councilor Juan Anderson-Burgos who said that he would not be voting to put the question on the November ballot but not because he disagreed with the idea. He referenced low voter turnout for municipal elections and proposed placing the question on the November 2024 presidential ballot.
Burgos was not the only councilor who felt bringing the question to the November ballot may not be the best opportunity for voters to reflect the majority opinion on the topic as seen in the 7-6 vote, as all councilors agreed with voter’s rights to decide but not about when they get the chance to decide. Other councilors who voted no cited lack of concerns being expressed from constituents that a change was needed.
“Something of this magnitude, if you’re going to be presenting it to the voters then we should really be waiting for a larger voter turnout and we all know that this year we’re not going to have that turnout,” Anderson-Burgos said during the April 4 meeting. “When we got this passed, look at the turnout back then and how many people were in favor of it. I only feel that its right if we’re going to do this, then let’s do it next election next year. That would make more sense.”
Garcia’s decision to veto the measure ultimately is to allow the council to reset when this question would come to the ballots in Holyoke. He said while the data is not as overwhelming as some may assume when thinking turnout in certain elections, there was enough data showing presidential and state elections will bring out the most voters which in turn will best reflect the city on the decision.
“The city clerk put together a chart reflecting data proving this assumption [local elections are less of a draw in voter turnout] is not entirely accurate. However, the graph does show a greater voter turnout [almost 70%] during state election years that also include presidential elections,” Garcia said. “Since we have a presidential election coming up in 2024, I vetoed the measure and sent a letter to the City Council encouraging them to send this back to committee for further discussion and agree to place the question on the ballot for the 2024 state/presidential elections.”
During discussion at the April 4 City Council meeting, At-Large Councilor Joseph McGiverin said the ballot question offered voters a clear choice and noted that few communities in the state impose a 3% property tax surcharge, the maximum rate.
“It’s important to understand it was the voters who gave us, the city, the right to use CPA money and it’s the voters that I think rightfully have a chance to take a look at the option of reducing it if they so choose,” McGiverin said during the April 4 meeting.
The veto will bring the order back to committee for further discussion before coming back to the council for another final vote to decide on which election residents will be able to vote on the potential CPA surcharge change.
Garcia reiterated in closing of his update on the veto saying it was important to find the best way to allow the bulk of Holyoke voters to decide on a decision like this.
“Regardless of how people feel about CPA, I share the opinion with the council that it’s important we let the voters decide,” Garcia said. “The data shows that a state/presidential election has the strongest turnout, and the results will give the more accurate reflection of what the community wants.”