During the meeting, representatives from the Lake Wyola Association (LWAC) addressed the committee with concerns over the dam that requires maintenance following biennial inspections. Although the dam remains structurally safe, the need for repairs was highlighted. With the previous engineer, Morris Root, having retired, the town now relies on GZA Engineering for permit acquisition and maintenance projections. The crux of the discussion revolved around GZA’s preparation of grant applications for state funding, which could potentially cover 75% of the estimated $150,000 repair costs, leaving the town responsible for approximately $37,000.

The discussion delved into the logistics of grant applications, exploring the feasibility of splitting the project into two phases: design and permitting, estimated at $55,000, followed by construction. Members debated whether these grant applications should be staggered over two years or consolidated within a single cycle. Uncertainties persisted regarding the timeline for GZA’s applications, though it was suggested that the relevant grants might open in February or March. The committee considered aligning their funding applications with GZA’s timeline to synchronize efforts and clarify the town’s matching contributions.

Concerns were raised about the eligibility of the dam project for Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding. It was noted that the dam could qualify under both open space and historic preservation categories. A committee member confidently stated, “The dam seems to me pretty clearly to fall under the category of open space… preserving open space is an allowable project for CPA funding.” The committee underscored the importance of a matching funds commitment, contingent on state grant approval, noting that this approach diverged from the usual practice of securing match funding beforehand.

The LWAC representative confirmed that they would submit the grant application to the CPC by the February 6th deadline, with options for both hard copy and email submissions. The committee offered assistance by providing examples of successful past applications, recommending that the inclusion of multiple project categories would strengthen the proposal.

As the meeting progressed, the committee evaluated four projects with leftover funds. The buildings committee decided against proceeding with the 2019 Old Town Hall project, resulting in a straightforward warrant article preparation to rescind the grant and return $34,000 to the historic resources fund. Discussion moved to the 2021 South Brook Conservation Area Trails consultant project, where the Conservation Commission proposed reallocating the remaining $1,000 for trail maintenance and improvements, diverging from the original intent of hiring a consultant for trail evaluation. This prompted a debate over whether such a change would align with the town meeting’s original vote.

The committee also addressed the 2015 canoe launch project, where a proposal was made to use the remaining $360 to manage Buckthorn, an invasive species. This raised questions about whether this aligned with the original recreation project’s scope, which focused on establishing a canoe and kayak launch area. The committee concluded that a new grant application should be submitted to ensure clarity and adherence to initial project goals.

Lastly, the 2013 Hear House project posed challenges due to a lack of documentation from the original proposal. The committee resolved to continue researching this project, with the understanding that the meeting to vote on the warrant articles was scheduled for April 30, allowing time to gather necessary information.

In reviewing the annual report, the committee reflected on a relatively uneventful year but acknowledged that upcoming years would present more significant projects. During unanticipated business discussions, a proposal to incorporate an appendix in the community preservation plan was considered. This appendix would include the grant agreement language used after town meeting approvals, detailing the grant termination policy and timelines to ensure transparency for future applicants. The committee reached a general consensus that this addition would be beneficial, as the current documentation was not easily accessible.