Regarding Templeton CPC Funds:

Funds are raised locally through imposition of a voter-authorized surcharge on local property tax bills of 3%. Several exemptions to the CPA surcharge can also be authorized by voters at the time of adoption. Local adoption of CPA by a community triggers annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund, a statewide fund held by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, which the law also establishes. Deed recording fees charged by the state's Registries of Deeds are the funding source for the statewide Community Preservation Trust Fund. Revenues from these two sources—the local CPA property tax surcharge and annual distributions from the state's Community Preservation Trust Fund—combine to form a city or town's Community Preservation Fund.

CPC funds are not free money, it is tax dollars and fee dollars paid by you.

Communities may spend their CPA funds for projects in the following broad programmatic areas: Open Space, Historic Preservation, Affordable Housing and Outdoor Recreation. The CPA requires each adopting community to annually appropriate, or reserve for future appropriation, at least 10% of its estimated annual CPA fund revenues for open space projects (excluding recreational uses), 10% for historic preservation projects, and 10% for affordable housing projects. The remaining funds each year can be used on projects in any CPA programmatic area. The CPA statute describes in detail allowable uses of the funds within the four broad programmatic purpose areas, determining what projects are eligible for CPA funding.

Note: There are no CPC funds automatically designated for recreation use or for recreation commission.

As of November of 2019, 176 cities and towns (50% of the state's municipalities) have adopted the Community Preservation Act, and no community has ever revoked the program. Because of the rising number of communities participating in the program, legislation was passed in 2019 to increase the recording fees at the Registries of Deeds which provide revenue to the statewide CPA Trust Fund. This increase is expected to raise an estimated $60 million annually for CPA communities each year. (Communities that adopt CPA with the full 3% CPA surcharge are eligible to participate in two additional annual CPA fund distribution rounds each year, and the funding formula within the CPA law governing these rounds allows some smaller, less resource-rich communities to often receive a dollar for dollar annual match for CPA funds raised locally.)

As anyone can see, things change, and this program like many other things involved in government, requires much continual reading to keep up with changes in laws, funding, regulations and keeping local documentation and records up to date.

Maybe this is why the article for 230 thousand for Gilman Waite failed, it was past the deadline. Now posted on town website under community preservation community: What is the timetable of the funding cycle?

Applications may be submitted between December 7, 2008 and January 31, 2009 for proposals to be considered at the May 2008 Annual Town Meeting.

Unless an applicant can demonstrate that a significant opportunity would otherwise be lost, applications will not be accepted after this date.

 In case you missed it, at town meeting held November 3, 2021, it was stated by member of advisory committee that advisory is the only group who works for taxpayer, the only group who looks out for them. Why was there an item under article 1 for $4,500.00 to pay for road repair, because advisory had already voted against a transfer from town reserve fund, which they oversee per MGL. in advisory reserve fund transfer, one criteria for approval is To approve a transfer request, "the Advisory Committee should be of the opinion the request would be approved by a Town Meeting." Well, the spending of $4,500.00 was approved by town meeting vote (original reserve fund request was $4,000.00) Advisory was wrong in their conclusion that the taxpayer money was not needed and town meeting would not approve. One conclusion of this situation could be advisory (at least some members) are out of touch with town residents.

Also, as a result of article 4, amend town bylaw regarding advisory committee, it was made public that advisory had been discussing things outside of a public meeting and appeared to be trying to convince a town elected official to do their bidding, that is deny appointing a town resident to advisory because either advisory members do not like the resident, did not trust resident or whatever combinations of reasons they came up with, the committee was still talking amongst themselves on how to keep a resident off the advisory committee, even as it is touted as the only group that works for residents, interesting view, work for residents, looking for volunteers and when volunteer residents come forward, advisory tries to find ways to keep them off based on what? Time for some serious changes?

 Since recommendations of DOR matter in the instance of say a PILOT, then recommendation concerning size of advisory should be considered and perhaps it is time, go from 7 to 5 members, once upon a time, there were 9 members of planning board, but due to being hard to find members to run for election, number was reduced to 7. Advisory once upon a time had 9 members, reduced to 7 because difficulty in getting enough members for a quorum. Considering what happened right after our last annual town meeting, not enough members to have a quorum for a 7 member group, maybe time to consider going to 5, there are many communities with 5 member advisory committees. By the way, state law and our town bylaws state we have an advisory committee, NOT an advisory board, sometimes facts matter!

1951 town bylaw, there shall be an advisory committee of 9 legal voters . . . . section 1 of article IV in 2010 Templeton town bylaw book, sections 1-4, 5, 6 passed 3-5-1951. Massachusetts General Law chapter 39, section 16, advisory, finance or warrant committee, so fact is from 1951, town bylaw and state law cited it as advisory committee, some people just decided to call it something else, sort of the cemetery and parks commission, town never accepted MGL on parks commission - facts do matter.

Then - Annual Town Meeting, May 2011.

Article 28. To see if the Town will vote to amend Article IV – Advisory Committee,

Section 1., first sentence, and Section 2., first sentence: as follows the text to be deleted stricken and the text to be inserted underlined as follows:

“Section 1. There shall be an Advisory Committee consisting of seven ( strike nine) legal voters of the town who shall be appointed by the Moderator as hereinafter provided.”

“Section 2. The Moderator of the town meeting when this By-Law is adopted shall, within thirty days after such by-law becomes effective, appoint 2 (strike 3) members of said committee for a term of one year, 2 (strike 3) members for terms of two years, and 3 members for terms of three years.”

or to take any other action relative thereto

 One view of Advisory Committee:

The function of the Advisory Committee is to act as an advisor to town meeting of Templeton, with whom, ultimate appropriating authority rests. The Town Administrator, who reports to an elected Select Board, administers municipal functions. The Superintendent of Schools, who reports to an elected School Committee, administers the operation of the School Department. The Advisory Committee is not elected but is appointed by the Town Moderator. Because of this fact, the Advisory Committee functions on an advisory basis and does not set policy. Advisory Committee is not part of either of the two general functions: (a) Municipal Operation and (b) Education, and therefore should remain deliberative in its recommendations. Their job is to study the budget and each warrant article in detail and make recommendations to Town Meeting. The better it's report is, the more irrelevant debate can be eliminated and save time of the meeting. That said, a good report does not relieve the rest of the meeting from thinking and asking questions for themselves.

 Annual Town Meeting on May 12, 2021 - article 22, town meeting voted to keep current budget format, which is not a line item budget. Advisory Committee recommending the separation of articles appears to be an attempt to push selectmen (whom control the warrant) towards a more line item format, which the people have already voted, on multiple occasions, they do not want. If an advisory committee has done it's job, their recommendations and report (again, required by town meeting vote) would provide an explanation to town meeting on all articles, in enough detail, that there would be few, if any questions on what is being proposed and town meeting being asked to approve. While the current chair of advisory does a good job of trying to keep the committee focused and on point, it is also up to members to speak to the subject in front of them. One of the stated reasons for the existence of an advisory committee is that it is hard for the average citizen to keep up with all that goes on in their local government, so we have the advisory committee (we are required by state law to have said committee) which is suppose to inform town meeting of all that is before them at a town meeting. The responsibility of selectmen is to call a town meeting with a properly posted and executed warrant. According to town meeting times, the warrant does not have to contain verbatim language on what town meeting is to vote on. That is one of the reasons we have an advisory committee, to provide a detailed explanation to town meeting on what they are being asked to vote on - my opinion on this is if the Advisory Committee does their job and does it well, there is no need to break articles down on the warrant, advisory will have done this on their report to the meeting, now that would be working for the residents / taxpayers.

So, as a private town resident, who in another time, serves and has served on a few town boards / committees and as a private resident who tries to keep up, article 1 asks town meeting to transfer funds (money) from free cash to various departments so work can be done for the benefit of town residents. Increase in money to pay for heating in town owned buildings, to pay for software program to aid elected cemetery commissioners in managing the town's cemeteries ( no longer efficient to do things the same way as 100 years ago with a typewriter) They would no longer have to rely on just paper records. So, elected commissioners come up with a plan and a cost and pass that onto a town department which carries out the physical part of the plan and passes it up the chain to the manager of the department, DPW director, who passes it along to the town administrator who in turn brings it to the selectmen, who approve town meeting warrant. Article 1 also contains 2 more transfers of funds to help cover costs of work that was not planned and unknown at the last annual town meeting. The two items directly benefit residents, traversing the town roads. A 4th item in article 1 covers an increase cost (can you say inflation) that was not foreseen when town budget was before the last annual town meeting - painting of lines on a road way and I do not now about others, but sometimes, especially at night, those yellow and white lines on the road are very much relied on for a travel guide, not to mention informing drivers where it is legal to pass or not, where the turning travel lane is, etc. See, rather than a critique on how selectmen present warrant, advisory could work for the people and provide a clear explanation on each article; after all, how does the complaint aid you at town meeting?

 Came across a town in MA with a term limit of sorts for Finance/Advisory committee, it is referred to as being put on the retired list and yup, it involves time served and age.

Adams, MA by-law on Finance Committee; There shall be a Finance Committee consisting of 15 members who shall reside in the Town and shall be registered voters therein. Of this Committee no person holding an elective position or any other position in Town, other than that of Town Meeting member, shall be eligible to serve on the Finance Committee. The Town Moderator shall appoint all members of the Finance Committee, each of whom shall serve a term of three years. It is recommended that at least two members from each precinct be appointed by the Town Moderator, to ensure equitable representation. The term of office of each such member will expire on May 1 unless the annual business meeting of the Town is not held and dissolved by May 1, in which case such appointments to the Finance Committee shall not be made until such annual business meeting has been held and dissolved.

B. 

When any member who has served on the Finance Committee for not less than three consecutive terms shall reach 70 years of age, the Town Moderator, at the completion of such member's term, may notify him that thereafter he shall be on the retired list of Finance Committee members. A member so retired shall attend Finance Committee meetings only when so requested by its Chairman, to give his advice or suggestions on matters pending before the Committee. The members so retired shall have no vote at such meetings as they may attend. Every such retired member shall have the status of and be referred to as an “honorary member.” The honorary members are exclusive of the 15 members permitted by law.

Vacancies - In the event of a vacancy on the Finance Committee, the Town Moderator shall forthwith make an appointment to fill the vacancy for the unexpired term.

 Upcoming special town meeting of November 3, 2021, has an article concerning Advisory Committee and even as this very by-law was changed in June, 2020, to some benefit to residents, the committee seems to want to benefit themselves rather than residents; change the time requirement when the recommendation report to town meeting from advisory committee must be available to residents from the current 5 days before annual town meeting and 4 days before any special town meeting to 2 days before any town meeting. Why would a committee that is suppose to lookout for residents want to reduce the amount of time the people have to read recommendations / report of advisory committee? Giving a reason for the change due to time constraint or the fault of others seems to be passing the buck. Perhaps put more effort in acquiring what you need and work on time management before penalizing the very people you claim to work for. 100 years ago has nothing to do with what will be in front of the people on November, 3, 2021.