Laserfiche WebLink
<br />FINCOM-Regular Session <br />August 13,2026 <br /> <br />program carries significant debt, while the CPC does not. Anne Schnader questioned the <br />fiscal reasoning behind the proposed change and stated that the explanation should be <br />part of the discussion, noting that the CPC currently appears to have substantial funds <br />available. Greg McKelvey stated that the proposal originated with a Select Board member. <br />Members discussed the status of existing CPC projects and the amount of funding needed <br />for future projects. Mary Bradbury stated that, based on her experience, many Recreation- <br />related projects, such as boat ramps, playgrounds, and beach access improvements, <br />typically require funding of $500,000 or less and may not have su?icient funding available <br />through the Department of Public Works. She also questioned why funds remain <br />committed to projects that are several years old and whether unused funds should <br />eventually be returned to the CPC fund. <br />Anne Schnader stated that the primary question for the committee was the CPC's capacity <br />to fund future projects and how much funding would be needed annually to address larger <br />or emergency projects. Members also discussed the need for stronger project <br />management and noted that future projects should be evaluated carefully because the <br />number and cost of applications received each year can vary. <br /> Je? Pettengill stated that although the current $7 million balance appears substantial, the <br />fund could decrease quickly if expenditure continues without su?icient replacement <br />revenue. Members also discussed a?ordable housing funds and noted that the CPC has <br />transferred funds to the A?ordable Housing Trust to support a?ordable housing initiatives. <br />Roll Call Vote- 0-5 <br />Jeffrey Pettengill-no; Greg McKelvey-no; Keith Machado-no; Anne Schnader-no; Stephen <br />Kelley-no <br />Motion Does Not Pass <br />Article 2-No recommendation to remove the hold. <br />Article 5- No recommendation to remove the hold. <br />Article 8- No recommendation to remove the hold. <br />Article 9- <br />Motion made by Greg McKelvey to remove the hold. <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />