Sudbury CPC plans public forum on CPA funds and votes against petition to cut surcharge

The Town of Sudbury Community Preservation Committee on an unspecified March meeting reviewed draft outreach materials for a public forum on Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds and voted not to support a citizen petition to reduce the CPA surcharge from 3% to 1.5%.

The committee set a public forum for the 16th at 7 p.m. at Town Hall to present a PowerPoint, a trifold handout and one-page materials about how CPA funds have been used and to solicit public input on future priorities. Committee members and staff discussed tightening slides, reducing wordy criteria slides, including a clear budget handout and showing year-by-year and individual tax-bill impacts rather than only all-time totals. Adam (staff) said, “Fewer slides is better. More graphics is better.” Committee members asked that the presentation explain the statutory basis for CPA and note the relevant town bylaw so the public understands the legal and procedural framework.

The packet under review included a one-page handout prepared by Jennifer Roberts and a trifold draft that limits some financial figures to fiscal years 2020–2024. Victor (staff) offered to supply assessor data and historical tax-bill graphics for the presentation; he confirmed that the state match has declined as more communities participate, and that reducing the local surcharge would reduce or eliminate the higher “tier 2” and “tier 3” state match. Victor said, “That’s correct,” when asked about the change in state match levels. Members asked that materials explicitly say what period “total” figures cover and to include an administrative budget example for the CPC.

Committee members also reviewed a proposed map and discussed adding photos of funded projects (Haskell playground, Wolf property, Panther Brook, Hearst House and cemetery work were mentioned as possible visuals). Sam noted the committee has received more applications in recent years and that better public education about eligibility and application components would help applicants submit complete proposals.

On a separate agenda item, the committee considered a citizen petition to lower the CPA surcharge from 3% to 1.5%. A member moved to support the petition; after roll-call responses by members the motion failed. The roll-call in the transcript recorded these votes as no: Granger; Dave Hinkles; Costa; Andrew Bettinelli; Kirsten Rupenia; Marcus; and Sherry; Stan recorded an abstention. The committee therefore did not take a position in favor of the petition. The committee chair agreed to be prepared to speak at town meeting if needed; the chair said he would be ready.

Committee business included approval of minutes (the January 22 and March 19 drafts were moved and approved as amended). The committee confirmed the next regular meeting date (April 16) and that the public forum will be posted like a normal meeting. Staff were directed to finalize the handouts and slides, obtain assessor data for tax-bill examples, and prepare talking points on the implications of a surcharge reduction for the state match and future project funding.

Why it matters: The CPA local surcharge funds open-space, historic-preservation and community-housing projects in Sudbury; a reduction in the local surcharge would shrink the town’s funding capacity and reduce the town’s eligibility for higher tiers of state matching funds. The committee’s outreach materials and public forum are intended to inform residents ahead of any town meeting consideration of a citizen article.

Ending: The committee will finalize presentation materials and post the forum on the town calendar; staff will collect the requested budget and assessor figures and produce a concise, graphic-driven slideshow and handout for the forum.