The track and field project, discussed in depth during the meeting, has been in development for over six years. It aims to address the need for renovations, as the current track has been deemed unusable and condemned for competition by the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association. The project’s scope includes constructing an eight-lane track, transitioning the field to grass, and ensuring all areas are accessible to athletes and spectators with disabilities. A letter of support from the Amherst disability access committee further underscores community backing.

The funding distribution among the regional communities was a focal point of the discussion. The project manager clarified that Shutesbury is asked to contribute $136,000, with Leverett responsible for $176,000 and Pelham for $999,000. This distribution aligns with a capital formula, factoring in Amherst’s significant contribution to the overall funding. Additionally, an $800,000 request to Amherst’s Community Preservation Act (CPA) is pending Town Council approval, contingent upon the other towns’ participation.

The committee also tackled concerns about track surface materials, a topic previously debated due to synthetic surface apprehensions. It was confirmed that the project would use a synthetic, urethane-based product, essential for meeting competitive standards. Alternatives like stone dust were noted as unsuitable for competitive training or meets, as no high school in Massachusetts uses them. This decision aims to balance playability and compliance with necessary athletic standards.

In a related discussion, the committee explored the importance of feasibility studies for future projects, emphasizing the need to separate them from other applications to avoid complexities. Members deliberated on incorporating sustainable development principles into their evaluation criteria, covering areas such as clean energy and development concentration. Feedback from committee members on these principles is anticipated in future meetings.

Budget allocations and state matching funds for CPA were also scrutinized. The variability of state matches, influenced by legislative actions and registry fees, has been a concern, affecting funding strategies and project applications. The committee recognized the potential of borrowing against CPA funds for large projects, though Shutesbury has not previously pursued this option.

The meeting also included a public hearing on community preservation priorities, encouraging public input to guide updates to the preservation plan. Participants were invited to suggest revisions and provide feedback on existing goals. The chair emphasized the importance of specificity in comments to ensure clear and aligned discussions.

A notable topic was the discussion about the eligibility of projects outside Shutesbury, especially in collaboration with neighboring towns like Leverett for housing initiatives. Concerns arose about contributing to projects without gaining affordable housing credits, as state regulations discourage such arrangements to prevent communities from shifting responsibilities.

The committee considered strategies to prioritize local residents in affordable housing projects funded through collaborative efforts. However, challenges in achieving the state goal of 10% affordable housing, given Shutesbury’s limited housing stock, were acknowledged. Despite these challenges, the committee is committed to exploring solutions that align with community needs and regulatory requirements.