The most pressing topic of the meeting was the funding needs of the Clean Lakes Committee, which outlined its financial difficulties following the loss of revenue from cell tower funds. Historically, these funds supported water and open space projects, but a state ruling had disrupted their allocation. As a result, the Clean Lakes Committee is seeking approximately $623,000 over five years to support its initiatives, a sum notably higher than typical requests, including those for housing. One member noted the urgency, stating, “the water department has been kind of funding them but they need more money now.”

Further complicating matters is the categorization of funding needs, particularly distinguishing between maintenance versus capital projects. The committee engaged in a discussion on eco-harvesting efforts to manage invasive species in local water bodies, noting that the distinction between ongoing maintenance and one-time projects remains a significant gray area in community preservation funding. One member speculated, “you could argue too that it’s ongoing efforts to preserve the water body by eliminating the invasives,” but recognized that the success of funding requests would depend largely on their framing. The Clean Lakes Committee was advised to develop a three-year plan to clarify its funding needs more effectively.

In related updates, John Fulam reported the commencement of eco-harvesting on Forge Pond and Long Lake, with Long Lake experiencing less invasive aquatic growth compared to previous years. This positive development was well received by the committee, which expressed hope for continued improvements in local water bodies.

The committee also addressed the Fiscal Year 2025 budget and various project updates, with attention given to the tennis courts project. This project remains contingent on decisions about the Shaker Lane site, as the committee awaits further clarity on whether to relocate the courts closer to the middle school or renovate the existing site. The timeline for moving forward is tight, with the warrant closing on September 14. Questions arose about procedural implications if substantial changes to the project necessitate amendments to funding requests. Members agreed on the need to consult with the finance team and considered seeking assistance from the coalition, though this was uncertain.

A notable discussion focused on the Frog Pond project at Long Lake, which involves multiple components such as hardscape improvements, invasive plant control, and dredging. The intent is to create a walking path and enhance recreational aspects while preserving open space. The project is in its preliminary stages, and collaboration with the Parks and Recreation department is necessary. The committee debated whether to classify the project as a renovation, restoration, or preservation, with a consensus leaning towards preservation with recreational features.

The committee reviewed a code of conduct document, emphasizing the necessity of signing it to promote respectful treatment. Despite some discomfort among members, the intent of the code is to foster a culture of respect within the committee and its public interactions. Due to insufficient attendance, the approval of the code was postponed until a full quorum could be present. The draft received positive feedback, and the discussion was tabled for a future meeting.

Attention was also given to the preservation plan, which has been outdated since 2016. Members discussed complications in document formatting, with difficulties encountered while digitizing the plan. Subpar scanning software had hindered progress, leading to suggestions to seek assistance from local office supply stores. Updating the plan with a current date was also mentioned, as it had not been reviewed in recent years.

The committee debated the merits of including specific examples in their plans and documents, referencing another organization’s detailed approach. Some members preferred a general approach to avoid complications in future project comparisons, while others saw benefits in detailed guidelines. Reviewing the other organization’s examples before the next meeting was proposed.

Public input was not solicited during this meeting. The minutes from previous meetings were reviewed, with several areas requiring amendments. Notably, a lack of documentation regarding a vote led to the consensus that a sentence should be added to clarify that a vote had occurred. Amendments were proposed for the minutes from April 1, June 25, and July 17, with the February 21 minutes tabled due to incomplete information. The motion to approve the minutes with necessary amendments passed unanimously.