A point of discussion was the fiscal analysis of the MBTA Communities Act, which necessitated a detailed review of the potential impact on student enrollment from new housing developments. The committee debated various assumptions used to project the number of school-aged children, noting previous discrepancies in similar studies. An emphasis was placed on the importance of accurately estimating these numbers to avoid underestimating the potential impact on local schools. One member suggested a conservative approach might be prudent, quoting, “better to estimate too much than to be upside down.” This cautious stance was considered necessary due to the past decline in student enrollment from 823 in 2020 to 651, which further complicated projections.

The conversation also touched upon the assumptions regarding the number of units proposed within specific areas, such as the Brady property and another 128 area. The feasibility of larger developments was restricted by current zoning laws, which limit the number of units developers can construct. The committee expressed skepticism about the reported low numbers of feasible units.

Another topic was the conservation proposal presented by Crystal Point, president of ESS Green Belt, which involved acquiring approximately 330 acres of land for conservation. This project, which spans into Gloucester, aims to protect ecologically valuable land. The committee deliberated over a request for a $250,000 investment from the town to secure a conservation restriction. Concerns were voiced about the financial implications, such as the loss of approximately $15,000 in annual property taxes if the land becomes tax-exempt. While some members supported the conservation effort, others questioned the use of Community Preservation Act funds for this purpose, particularly given the town’s need for affordable housing.

The potential benefits and drawbacks of using CPA funds for conservation versus housing were thoroughly debated.

Further discussions focused on the projected costs of new developments on police and fire services. A conservative estimate suggested that these services could cost approximately $200,000, considering additional calls associated with new commercial and residential developments. The committee also discussed whether developers should bear some of the costs related to infrastructure improvements, such as sidewalks and drainage, typically covered by the developer rather than the town.

Lastly, the meeting addressed the upcoming town meeting warrant, clarifying that the MBTA districts would be voted on as a single package encompassing zoning changes. The committee also noted the need to settle outstanding bills related to the SLV appeal and included public comments urging transparency in the fiscal analysis of new developments, stressing the importance of presenting a clear financial picture to the community.