Below is a summarized version of the Community Preservation Act (CPA) Study Committee meeting, organized by timestamps and speakers, focusing on key points raised during the discussion in Reading, Massachusetts. This summary condenses the discussion into major themes, speaker contributions, and decisions, avoiding excessive detail while retaining the essence of the conversation. Timestamps correspond to the video linked at the bottom.
- 🔹 Call to Order
- 📑 Preparation for Select Board Presentation
- 🔹 Additional Content Corrections
- 🧮 Discussion: Placement of Override Slides
- 🧾 Clarification on Warrant Article Process
- 🎤 Full Run‑Through of the Presentation
- 🏷 Apartment buildings classification
- 🗓 Future Meeting & Town Meeting Outreach Planning
- 📄 Approval of Minutes
- 🛑 Adjournment
🏛️ Ad Hoc CPA Study Committee Meeting Summary
📅 Date: February 3, 2026
🕗 Duration: ~1hr35min
📍 Location: In person (Select Board Meeting Room & Zoom)
👥 Members Present:
Joe Carnahan (Chair), Sarah Brukilacchio (Vice Chair), Martha Moore, Sanford “Sy” Matathia, Carlo Bacci, Margaret Donnelly Moran (joined shortly after start)
🔹 Call to Order
🕒 8:18
- Meeting opened; quorum established.
- No public comment.
📑 Preparation for Select Board Presentation
🕒 8:39–12:06
- Sarah contacted Community Preservation Coalition (CPC).
- CPC requested the slide deck for accuracy review.
- CPC (Chase Mack) flagged several non‑eligible CPA activities mistakenly included in slides:
- ❌ Trail mapping is not CPA‑eligible.
- ❌ Archivist position and historical markers — also not CPA‑eligible.
- Committee agreed:
- Remove ineligible bullets.
- Add CPC’s Allowable Uses Table as an appendix slide for reference during questions.
🔹 Additional Content Corrections
🕒 12:06–14:11
- On Historic Preservation slide:
- Removed “Other projects” bullets that CPC indicated were not eligible.
- Added examples of preservation-restricted private properties eligible for CPA:
- Parker Tavern
- Train Depot
- Added new bullet on Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund (MPPF): > CPA funds can serve as the town’s 50% match for MPPF grants.
🧮 Discussion: Placement of Override Slides
🕒 14:11–38:01
Sy’s viewpoint:
- Override slides should move to the appendix to keep the CPA presentation clean and focused.
Carlo’s feedback (as Select Board member):
- These graphs could hurt the committee politically:
- Tax fatigue is high.
- Hypothetical graphs showing “offsets” may not land well.
- Strong recommendation: Keep override content out of the main flow, but make it available if asked.
Consensus Decision:
- Override slides will be moved to the appendix.
- Present only if Select Board asks about interplay with override.
🧾 Clarification on Warrant Article Process
🕒 38:01–45:01
Committee revisited the Reading Town Charter regarding warrant placement:
- Section 2.13: The Select Board must place on the warrant any article submitted by:
- ✔ Any town board or committee
- ✔ Any 10 registered voters
Conclusion:
- The CPA Study Committee does count as a board/committee under the Charter definition.
- Therefore, the Select Board cannot block placement of the CPA article.
🎤 Full Run‑Through of the Presentation
🕒 45:01–1:29:18
Joe and Sarah rehearsed the full 10-minute Select Board presentation.
Key feedback:
- Don’t read slides verbatim.
- Allow audience time to scan slides; presenters add context, not duplication.
- Emphasize Reading’s historic resources, not underfunding.
- On housing:
- Avoid comparing Reading to Cambridge/Somerville (politically risky).
- Emphasize leverage, flexibility, and Reading’s current small Housing Trust.
- On recreational bullets:
- Update language based on CPC feedback.
- Clarify role of volunteer booster organizations.
Additional requested slide changes:
- Add slide listing committee membership (per Carlo).
- Adjust match number to 10-year average (≈24.7%) to match written report.
- Rewrite “unanimously recommends” bullet: > Use “strongly recommends” instead—because Carlo did not support the final CPA recommendation.
🏷 Apartment buildings classification
🕒 1:29:18–1:33:02
- Question raised whether large apartment buildings are “residential” or “commercial.”
- Victor (Town Assessor) will be asked to confirm.
- Initial indication: apartments are classed under residential land use codes.
🗓 Future Meeting & Town Meeting Outreach Planning
🕒 1:33:02–1:35:00
➡ Monday, February 23, 2026 – 7:30 PM
Agenda will include:
- Debriefing Select Board presentation
- Planning outreach to Town Meeting members
- Preparing materials for April Town Meeting
- Review whether report needs updating (e.g., for eligibility chart)
📄 Approval of Minutes
🕒 1:41:43–1:42:29
- Minutes from January 20, 2026 approved unanimously.
🛑 Adjournment
🕒 1:42:42–1:43:12
- Meeting adjourned at 9:30 PM.
