A proposal from the Westport Youth Athletic Association sought $700,000 for the construction of three tennis courts, a project driven by a recent reduction in public tennis court use due to a change in school policy. Martha Sullivan, the project’s manager, highlighted the urgency, noting a 70% reduction in available court time during school hours. This change disrupted league play and reduced instruction time for local players, as the public was previously allowed access to school courts when not in use. The recreation department endorsed the project, supporting both tennis and pickleball instruction, and the Council for Aging cited its potential health benefits for seniors. However, the committee expressed concerns about the high cost.

The discussion also explored alternative funding sources, with suggestions to seek grants aimed at projects benefiting children. Tim Kaitton mentioned that competitive bidding might lower costs by 20%, although he doubted the total expenditure would drop below $500,000. Emily noted the high quotes were due to the choice of post-tension concrete, which, though expensive, offers long-term durability. Meanwhile, John raised questions about post-construction maintenance responsibilities, which the project team acknowledged as a key consideration in their fundraising efforts.

The committee considered the financial constraints of the Community Preservation Committee, which earns about $900,000 annually. The $700,000 request would be the largest single expenditure in a year, complicating the committee’s ability to fund other projects, such as a $500,000 playground request from the elementary school. Members suggested the project team return with a reduced funding request and pursue active fundraising to bridge the gap.

In parallel, the committee reviewed a $300,000 proposal from the Westport Affordable Housing Trust for an affordable housing project. However, the proposal was deferred for further discussion, as it lacked specificity and did not align well with a production report accepted by the select board. The committee emphasized the need for a detailed business plan that addresses potential uses of the high school property, a point not adequately covered in the initial submission. The historic committee’s advocacy for land acquisition to facilitate the development of 30 or more homes was also noted.

Financial limitations and the committee’s inability to make multi-year commitments further complicated project planning. It was clarified that funds for approved projects would only be available from July 1, following town meeting approval in early May. This timeline posed challenges for projects with specific operational windows, particularly those subject to environmental restrictions.

The meeting also touched on the allocation of Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, traditionally divided across open space, recreation, community housing, and historic preservation. It was suggested that approximately $300,000 be directed towards recreation. Members were reminded of the obligation to allocate 10% of the yearly budget to each category, with flexibility for additional allocations.

Discussions on funding were supplemented by a review of previous meeting minutes and minor amendments, which were unanimously approved. A letter from the historical commission regarding the Halen Hall project reaffirmed previously approved changes without altering funding amounts. The committee also approved payment of bills related to historic gravestone restoration and clerical expenses, totaling $3,430.74.

Inquiries about the current state of gravestone cleaning efforts led to a request for a summary of restored gravestones. Additionally, the committee discussed the availability of CPA funding data, with a member offering to create a more dynamic Excel spreadsheet for easier manipulation.