07/28/2026 COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT COMMITTEE Minutes

Home Browse Search

drop. will State from match Mashpee’s that noted Waygan Member elsewhere. money find to have will ,schools as such applicants, funding less sought/available. is funding other what specifically applications that noted Chair CPC. to come applicants then where,else found be can’t money if i.e., resort, last of avenue si that suggested Pitt Member .sources funding other there whether to as inquired Waygan Member .housing no recreation no e.g.,—edfund be cannot projects other means diagnostic ponds on vote itive ,reduction of favor in She’s sources. funding other Th . done be to study agnosticdi need pressing a be to appear There sewering. after or own diagnostic do to ther about discussion there vote Ponds before that noted Barbee Member . by supported considered 350K$ of request pond when from kept reduction proposed to as nformationI .reduction additional an is heret ,again happen would it that 2% to 3 from went it when promised to ctiondure support does Waygan Member .funds of best is it whether ,study pond to w that funding regarding opinions voiced Members Given the tie vote, the original recommendation for the ponds diagnostic study remains in place and will go forward on the warrant as previously voted. b. Policy Discussion Members discussed the larger policy question as to whether it is prudent to continue to fund a large diagnostic study if future CPA revenues may be cut in half from 2% to 1%. CPC members expressed concern that reducing CPA revenues would significantly limit future funding for open space, recreation, historic preservation, and affordable housing. Specific points raised:  The Town has relied heavily on CPA for land acquisition debt and clean water- related projects.  Reducing CPA from 2% to 1% would cut the annual funding pool substantially, limiting what the committee can support.  Projects would either need to find other grant sources or not be funded at all.  The CPC should not be forced to choose between wastewater and other community needs. Several members stressed that the Town’s needs do not disappear if CPA is reduced; instead, they may shift elsewhere, including to the CIP process. Questions were raised about the rationale and budgeting behind the wastewater proposal and whether the Town has fully communicated the financial need. The CPC also discussed the reduction in State match if the surcharge is lowered, noting that the Town could lose substantial matching funds if it does not maintain the full surcharge structure. Members voiced concern that there should have been a warning as now other worthwhile projects will not be funded. Members opined that land purchase is more important than the pond study which can be funded by the wastewater money. 3