The CPA presentation, led by a member of the CPA study committee, outlined the CPA’s primary goals of funding open space conservation, historical preservation, and affordable housing. The committee was originally tasked with preparing for a vote on the CPA by November 2024 but requested an extension to November 2026 to conduct a thorough study. The CPA could provide Reading with the opportunity to access state matching funds, augmenting local resources for various projects. Discussions included potential projects that could benefit from CPA funding, such as property acquisitions, enhancements to community gardens, and trail improvements.

The committee is considering a surcharge rate of 1% on property tax bills, which is anticipated to raise about $1 million annually. There was debate over the optimal surcharge rate, with options of 0.5%, 1%, and 1.5% being discussed. Members expressed concerns about proposing a rate too high, as it might be rejected by voters, resulting in no funding. They suggested a strategic rate that would cost households approximately $100 annually to ensure community support.

A key component of the CPA discussion was the allocation process. Funds would be distributed across open space, recreation, and affordable housing, with historical preservation also eligible for support. The community preservation committee would recommend allocations, which would then require approval at a town meeting. The commission stressed the importance of transparency and community involvement in the CPA process, urging feedback from members and the public on potential projects and funding allocations. The commission deferred a vote on CPA proposals until more information is gathered and prepared for a future meeting.

Another agenda item was the discussion on a property on John Carver Road. Represented by Jack Sullivan from the Sullivan Engineering Group, the project involved work within a 100-foot buffer zone of a vegetated wetland. The changes included demolishing a one-car garage and replacing it with a larger structure that included living space above, with no substantial landscape changes or tree removal required. Martha Moore, a vice chair, noted that some existing structures like a swing set and treehouse within the 25-foot buffer should be removed in the future. The commission approved a negative determination for the project.

The meeting also touched on land donation policies, with discussions concerning a recent land acquisition near the high school. The commission planned to draft a letter to clarify their stance on land donations and the need for consultation with the forestry department, particularly regarding tree conditions.

Additionally, the commission addressed ongoing compliance issues at a site on Pearl Street, where reconstruction efforts were being monitored. The commission noted obstacles such as a dirt pile blocking a stream and emphasized the need for completion according to established plans.

Lastly, there was a focus on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and its rail modernization program. A liaison was appointed to ensure ongoing communication and information sharing with the MBTA. Concerns were raised by residents about the program’s timeline and perceived lack of transparency, with calls for better public engagement and consideration of community input.