Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text
FinCom Minutes 3-16-26 (Approved)
Saved text from 11 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.
Source page 1
Canton Finance Committee Meeting
Monday, March 16th, 2026, 7pm
Virtual Meeting
In Attendance: Emilio Mauro, Kristin Mirliani, Nicholas Corkery, John Leonetti, Helen Mancuso, Evan Patton,
Cindy Thomas, Reuki Schutt, and Ronald Wilson
William Scollins – Finance Director
Absent: n/a
CCTV Recording
Recording Secretary: Allison Neff
Chairperson Mauro called the meeting to order at 7:02pm.
ARTICLE 33 AMEND GENERAL BYLAW: STRETCH SPECIALIZED ENERGY CODE -
SUSTAINABILITY & CLIMATE ACTION PLAN COMMITTEE (SCAP)
Tom Birmingham, SCAP Committee Chairperson; Jen Wexler, SCAP Vice Chair; & Madeline Rawson,
GreenerU Energy Consultant
Mr. Birmingham thanked the Committee for this opportunity to meet and explained that Article 33 proposes
that Canton adopt this specialized energy code, which was developed by the MA Department of Energy
Resources (DOER) Following the 2021 Climate Act.
This code applies only to new building construction, not to existing homes, renovations, or historic buildings. It
ensures that new buildings in Canton are at peak energy efficiency and more able to incorporate renewable
energy technologies.
From the municipal and financial perspectives, the code has no direct impact on the Town’s operating budget
or on property taxes as it only establishes construction standards for new buildings. Adopting it qualifies
Canton for up to $1 million of potential state grant funding, through the MA Climate Leaders Community
Program, for local clean energy infrastructure investments. From the perspective of residents and developers
the incremental increase in costs for construction are generally modest, averaging 1-2% for mixed fuel homes,
and often these extra costs are offset through lowered utility bills once construction is complete.
Canton is already benefiting from applying this code to the new Galvin Middle School project, and the SCAP
Committee has received many questions from boards and committees in Town throughout their public
information process. Mr. Birmingham encouraged the Finance Committee to review the FAQs on the Town’s
website on the Sustainability & Climate Action Plan homepage.
Ms. Rawson offered to answer as many questions as possible at this meeting and stated that any questions
that could not be answered this evening would be followed up on and responded to. She proceeded to give an
overview of Warrant Article 33.
While all existing buildings cannot be fixed, adoption of this code would make sure new buildings are energy-
efficient, electric (or wired to be converted to all-electric later), and contributing to the Town’s electricity
supply. Canton wants to be as energy efficient as possible and is already on its way due to enacting the
STRETCH energy code in 2017. The main difference between the STRETCH code and this one is that buildings
Page 1 of 11Source page 2
must be all electric or wired to be all electric in the future, and mixed fuel buildings must have solar
power/renewable energy. As noted by Mr. Birmingham, this would unlock significant amounts of grant
funding. 56 Communities have adopted this code thus far (32% of the state population), including many towns
local to Canton.
Specialized Code Requirements:
Ms. Rawson confirmed that the code applies only to new buildings, and does not apply to existing buildings,
renovations, or additions. Regarding residential requirements, new homes of any size that are all-electric have
no additional requirements. Mixed-fuel new homes can be built but must be wired for future full
electrification. For mixed-fuel new homes under 4,000 square feet some solar panels must be added, while
mixed-fuel new homes over 4,000 square feet must install enough solar panels to offset all of the home’s
energy requirements. Requiring this for new builds is very valuable, as it means there will be no costly retrofits
in the future to make the house all-electric. Large multi-family buildings (over 12,000 square feet) that are all-
electric must meet Passive House standards, and those that are mixed-fuel must also be wired for future
electrification. New commercial buildings that are all-electric have no further requirements, while those
running on mixed-fuel must include wiring for future electrification and add some solar panels. She noted that
there are substantial exceptions for new commercial buildings that can be investigated further.
Specialized Code Economic Impacts:
Ms. Rawson shared that, according to the DOER, it is less expensive to build an all-electric house than a mixed-
fuel one before any Specialized Code requirements are taken into consideration, due to contractors not having
to run gas lines and several other related factors. The DOER did a case study which showed a 1-2% higher
construction costs for mixed-fuel buildings compared to all-electric. For large multi-family buildings, additional
incremental costs due to Passive House standards average 2.2%, often offset by resources including Mass
Save, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), lower spending on heating/cooling, and 3rd party verification
through Passive House (which avoids additional inspection costs). Energy use in these multi-family homes is
decreased by 40-60%, and residents of those buildings enjoy healthier air, more comfortable temperatures,
and more resilient and durable construction.
Ms. Rawson stated that data shows the communities that have adopted the Specialized Code have stronger
housing production numbers. She noted that this data exemplifies correlation, rather than causation, but
shows there are definitely no negative impacts seen from adopting the Code. She shared the case study of the
Town of Lexington, noting the concerns in that municipality that this Code would stop or lower the
development of affordable housing, but this was found not to be case, and Lexington saw a significant
increase in affordable housing, along with decreased annual heating costs. The new GMS in Canton is being
built to these Specialized Code standards, which has gained the Town millions of dollars in grant incentives
and will reduce the annual operating and maintenance costs for the new school.
Mr. Rawson finished her presentation by noting that the SCAP Committee has met (or is planning to meet)
with the Economic Development Committee, the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Affordable Housing Trust, the
Master Plan Implementation Committee, the Planning Board, and the Finance Committee, along with holding
2 public information sessions in the near future.
Page 2 of 11Source page 3
Mr. Mauro confirmed that the definition of “new building” in this context means new construction, and noted
that, based on the data, it does not seem to have a negative impact on new housing construction. He asked for
more information on the impact of the Code on commercial development, as Canton has a dual tax system
and he has heard concerns about the impact on commercial property, particularly given that commercial
buildings vary so widely while homes are fairly homogenous. He asked if there was any data from local towns
that adopted the Code showing it did not negatively affect commercial development. Ms. Rawson responded
that commercial construction is more difficult to measure and data on this topic is currently being collected.
Mr. Birmingham added that some information has been found and is included in the earlier mentioned FAQs.
Different buildings of common construction type were looked at, and there is a basic estimate that the Code
increases new commercial construction costs by 1-2%, while retrofitting a building not built under the
Specialized Code costs many more thousands of dollars. He assured the Finance Committee that the SCAP
Committee is trying to come up with estimates based on the nature of the construction, and they hope to
have figures to provide to commercial developers soon. He also provided a link to the FAQ site:
town.canton.ma.us/1133/FAQs
Mr. Mauro asked Finance Director Scollins if he had any concerns regarding possible revenue impact. Mr.
Scollins stated he did not have any concerns personally, but has heard some concerns from others, and knows
that development is slow in the Town right now with the new growth property tax at its lowest level in several
years.
Mr. Mauro asked the representatives to explain Passive Housing for those who are unfamiliar with it. Ms.
Rawson stated that Passive House is the gold standard for efficient and affordable high-performance buildings.
Based on control of the air, heat, and moisture, it is a standard that all new construction should be working
toward. She showed pictures of houses using thermal imaging to show that heat loss is significantly lower on
Passive House homes compared to standard. Buildings built to Passive House standards are becoming more
common (with over 30,000 units having pursued Passive House through the Mass Save program) and an
industry standard. Many affordable housing developers are already building with Passive House because
incentives from the State make it less expensive. Mr. Mauro pointed out that the savings resulting from
building to these standards will mostly be seen by the eventual owner/user of these buildings, but
acknowledged that if many are being built and sold then developers are obviously able to incorporate these
standards and still make a profit, even if they are not seeing the savings themselves. Ms. Rawson agreed,
stating that the savings are for the eventual owner, noting that so much support is available for Passive House
that the future operating savings do not need to be considered for it to still be worth it for the developers. She
shared a slide listing the multiple subsidies, incentives, and resources available for supporting Passive House
building. Mr. Mauro asked if similar subsidies and incentives are available to small and large businesses for
commercial buildings, and Ms. Rawson responded there is not the same volume of support options, but there
are some resources and she will get more detailed information to bring back to the Committee.
Mr. Mauro noted that the case study of Lexington is helpful as, like Canton, that town is in a strategic location
in the Boston area. He asked if towns in strategic locations see more benefit from this Specialized Code, and if
there is any evidence of prospective residents or developers being willing to pay more to get into the market
in those locations. Ms. Rawson stated that residents of Lexington have been very pleased with the results of
adopting this code and she has not heard any negatives about it. She noted her willingness to look into any
Page 3 of 11Source page 4
other specific towns the Finance Committee would like to compare with. Mr. Mauro suggested Norwood may
be a good comparison example, as Canton often compares itself to that town.
Mr. Leonetti noted the importance of paying attention to the energy grid and energy usage, but and asked Mr.
Scollins whether more than half of Canton’s real estate income is from commercial properties. Mr. Scollins
explained that it is about 35%. Mr. Leonetti pointed out that, given that more than 1/3rd of the Town’s Real
Estate revenue is commercial, more information and specific data is needed on the commercial impacts of
adopting the Specialized Code. Mr. Birmingham noted that the data collected thus far indicates that the
commercial impact is roughly 1-2% but he acknowledged that there is significant variability. Mr. Leonetti
pointed out that no data had been collected on Canton specifically, and it is unknown if Lexington’s
commercial base is similar. He went on to question why the Select Board voted against the adoption of the
Code. Ms. Rawson explained that the Code was originally supposed to go before the Select Board in October
along with a full public information campaign, but the Committee was held up and GreenerU was only able to
be onboarded in January of 2026, which has caused matters to be rushed. She added that adopting this code is
in line with the Climate Action Plan, which the Select Board has supported, but timing constraints worked
against her and the SCAP Committee, leaving them unable to talk to multiple Select Board members before
their vote on the subject, which would have made a difference.
Mr. Leonetti pointed out that now may not be the ideal timing to discuss adopting a code that has a potential
impact on substantial amounts of property and revenue with Annual Town Meeting deadlines looming. Ms.
Rawson replied that she will try to gather more information about commercial building impacts in Lexington as
soon as possible and bring them to the Committee but she noted that it is understandable if more time is
needed. Mr. Leonetti also pointed out that the new GMS was able to meet these requirements without a
mandate, leading him to question why the mandate is necessary to be pushed through or rushed, with Ms.
Rawson responding that there is grant money available now for Climate Leader Communities, and while they
hope it will be replenished in future years, it is uncertain if any of that funding will still be available.
Additionally, she noted that builders/developers may not necessarily act in the best financial interest of the
future homeowners if not required to do so. She reiterated that, while up-front building costs may be higher,
future savings on energy costs and not needing costly retrofits are significant, and this mandate would protect
consumers. Mr. Leonetti responded with his general concern regarding the lack of research and he asked if the
approximately $1 million in grant opportunities mentioned earlier would be split amongst all Climate Leader
Communities or if it is per community. Ms. Rawson confirmed the grant money is per community. Mr.
Birmingham added that there are significant challenges with doing commercial cost impact analysis as the
nature and type of buildings being planned is not always known.
Ms. Mirliani asked if the Town had any means of accessing that approximately $1 million of grant money
without passing this specialized code, and Ms. Rawson responded in the negative, clarifying that the money is
only for Climate Leader Communities, and 1 of the 6 requirements for earning that title is the passing of this
code. Ms. Rawson went on to note that Canton has met 4 of the 6 requirements thus far and a 5 th is simple
and currently in process. The passing of this code is the last major hurdle for the Town to earn Climate Leader
status.
Mr. Mauro asked if there are any mechanisms for exemptions or disputing the rules if the code is passed, and
Ms. Rawson stated that this would fall under the purview of the DOER and they should be contacted for these
Page 4 of 11Source page 5
matters, adding that they are generally very responsive. Mr. Mauro followed up by asking if there is concern
about the Climate Leader funding being withdrawn at the State level in the near future. He also noted the
great responses of the SCAP Committee and Ms. Rawson’s organization to questions from other boards and
committees, and he stated his appreciation of their responsiveness. Mr. Birmingham answered Mr. Mauro’s
question, stating that $60 million has been approved by the legislature and appears to be solid, but it is not
certain whether any additional funds will be renewed when the current fund is depleted, adding to his
recommendation that this code be passed now before the funding is potentially completely spent by other
communities.
Mr. Patton noted his concern regarding the information that the typical length of time for the energy savings
to pay back the upfront costs is 12-13 years, while statistics show that homeowners live in a house for an
average of approximately 7 years. He asked if, in communities who have adopted the Code, there is data
suggesting residents stay in the homes longer, and if that has had any impact on the stock of starter homes in
these communities, particularly given the lack of housing available in the Commonwealth overall. Ms. Rawson
replied that the Code was created in 2022, so they have not yet been able to obtain data regarding whether
owners stay in the property longer, but she stated her belief that homeowners are more likely to stay in a
home when they are not expecting the need for costly retrofits. She did not know if there was an impact on
starter home stock and pledged to look into it.
Mr. Corkery stated that he does not believe he can vote for or against this code with so many unanswered
questions remaining and without knowing its possible ramifications on the tax base. He believes this is a good
idea, but the rushed timing is difficult, and this topic will require a thought-out process. He went on to state
that, rather than pushing for a mandate that is well-intended but not complete, the Town should wait and
make sure their climate goals can be achieved without unforeseen consequences.
In response to a question from Ms. Thomas, Ms. Rawson stated that there are currently approximately 26
Climate Leader Communities and 56 communities have adopted this Specialized Code. Ms. Thomas asked if
there had been any lessons from those communities, and Ms. Rawson explained that once the code is adopted
there is generally a 6-9 months delay before the code going into effect, and she would look further into the
results of the code implementation in Norwood and other communities comparable to Canton.
Mr. Mauro asked if there were any towns that approved and enacted the Code and then retracted it, to which
Mr. Birmingham and Ms. Wexler replied in the negative. Mr. Mauro suggested the Committee wait for the
answers to questions asked at this meeting before voting on whether to recommend the enactment of the
code to make sure any action taken is in the Town’s best fiscal interest, but noted his appreciation for
everything that is being done to advance Canton’s Climate Action Plan. No Committee members expressed
disagreement with waiting to vote. Mr. Leonetti stated that he would like to hear from the people who make
decisions and allocate capital to projects like this, as enacting this code could have an impact on the Town’s
entire commercial real estate base. Mr. Patton asked if the Finance Committee had access to numbers
showing how much development has been done in Canton over the past 5-10 years, with Mr. Mauro
responding that those numbers are likely available as new growth is tracked. Mr. Scollins added that this
information may be included in the revenue forecast document which was sent to all Finance Committee
members, but he noted that residential and commercial new growth taxes are blended, and therefore this
Page 5 of 11Source page 6
document may not include the data the Finance Committee is looking for here. Mr. Mauro suggested asking
the Board of Assessors to compile the needed information and Mr. Scollins concurred.
Ms. Mirliani asked when these representatives would be returning, and Mr. Scollins answered that the motion
in the Warrant will be included no what the Finance Committee’s vote is, so the matter does not need to be
settled and the discussion written until April 8th, leading him to recommend that these representatives come
back by the March 30th meeting. Ms. Wexler stated that this would give them time to do their due diligence
and respond thoroughly and thanked the Committee.
Chairperson Mauro thanked the representatives for all their hard work on an important topic. Ms. Wexler
thanked the Committee for their consideration and expressing their concerns. She noted the efforts the SCAP
Committee is making to bring this information to the citizens of Canton for them to think about, including
public information sessions and meetings with key stakeholders and townspeople, and stated they would
respond to the Finance Committee with more information as soon as possible. Mr. Leonetti asked what
Building Commissioner Walsh’s response was to the proposed code. Ms. Wexler explained that they met with
Mr. Walsh when developing the Climate Action Plan and again recently with consultants for the Specialized
Code, and he had some questions about the possible impacts, but his response was that he would implement
whatever codes that were approved of by Town Meeting.
Chairperson Mauro thanked the representatives for attending the meeting.
CANTON COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARTICLE 17 CONSIDER VOTE ON
10 MOTIONS
Chairperson Mauro reminded the Committee that they met with representatives for the CCPC several weeks
ago and the Committee would now be voting on the motions of Article 17.
Motion 1:
Ms. Thomas made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Fifty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars ($53,354) be appropriated
from the Community Preservation Fund revenues for the administrative expenses of the Community
Preservation Committee in Fiscal Year 2027 provided, however, that any amounts not used during the year for
administrative expenses shall revert back to the CPA Undesignated Fund Balance at the end of Fiscal Year
2027. Ms. Mirliani seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Mr. Mauro noted that the motion discussions for the CCPC motions only need to be 2 or 3 sentences and
should reference the Finance Committee’s support for the CCPC’s recommendation.
Mr. Patton volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 1.
Motion 2:
Ms. Schutt made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Two Hundred Four Thousand Two Hundred Forty Dollars ($204,240) be appropriated
from the Community Preservation Fund revenues for the purposes by the Chief Procurement Officer with the
Page 6 of 11Source page 7
approval of the Select Board for debt service and expenses associated with the Open Space land acquisition of
the Paul Revere Heritage Site for the Fiscal Year 2027. Ms. Mancuso seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Ms. Mirliani volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 2.
Motion 3:
Ms. Thomas made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) be appropriated from the Community
Preservation Fund revenues to be spent by the Canton Public Schools for the purposes of resurfacing the
surface of the Hansen Elementary School playground. Ms. Schutt seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Ms. Schutt volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 3.
Ms. Schutt notes that the Finance Committee motions and discussions for all the CCPC recommended projects
are likely to look similar, and Mr. Mauro agreed.
Motion 4:
Ms. Thomas made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of One Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($112,000) be appropriated from the
Community Preservation Fund revenues to be spent by the Chief Procurement Officer with the approval of the
Walk, Bike, and Hike Committee for the purposes of surveying and delineating the wetlands of the Mary
Wentworth Recreational Facility. Ms. Schutt seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 7-2-0 (Yea: Mancuso, Mauro, Mirliani, Patton, Thomas, Schutt, and Wilson;
Nay: Corkery and Leonetti).
Ms. Schutt volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 4, and Mr. Leonetti volunteered
to write the minority discussion for Article 17, Motion 4.
Motion 5:
Ms. Schutt made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Three Hundred Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($315,000) be appropriated from the
Community Preservation Fund revenues to be spent by the Chief Procurement Officer for the purposes of the
restoration and rehabilitation of the Town-owned 1925 American LaFrance Fire Engine and associated project
costs. Ms. Mirliani seconded the motion.
Discussion: Ms. Mancuso asked what the purpose is for any Finance Committee member to vote nay on these
recommendations, wondering if it was just to let Town Meeting know that some members do not support the
project, noting that there was no discussion regarding the vote on Motion 4 despite the nay votes. Ms.
Thomas responded that significant discussion took place when representatives from the CCPC presented to
the Committee on 2/25/26. Mr. Mauro added that the concerns of members voting “no” can be expressed in
their minority discussion and he also reminded the Committee that they are voting on supporting the CCPC’s
recommendation, not voting on recommending it directly to Town Meeting. Mr. Leonetti added his view that
Page 7 of 11Source page 8
the members of Finance Committee were appointed to bring independent thinking, perspectives, and as much
information as possible to the voters at Town Meeting, which is a main factor in his desire to have separate
minority discussions.
Discussion: There was no Committee discussion regarding the specific recommendation of Motion 5.
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Ms. Schutt volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 5.
Motion 6:
Ms. Schutt made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) be appropriated from the Community Preservation
Fund revenues to be spent by the Canton Historical Commission for the purposes of studying and preserving the
Gridley Burying Ground located off Kinsley Place. Mr. Patton seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Mr. Patton volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 6.
Motion 7:
Ms. Schutt made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Sixteen Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-Four Dollars ($16,274) be appropriated from
the Community Preservation Fund revenues to be spent by the Canton Historical Society for the purposes of
performing a historically-informed structural analysis of the Gridley School Building on Washington Street. Ms.
Mirliani seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Ms. Mirliani volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 7.
Motion 8:
Ms. Mancuso made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) be appropriated from the Community
Preservation Fund revenues to be spent by the Revere & Son Heritage Trust for the purposes of adding
automatic door openers to 3 entry point of the Town-owned historic barn at 2 Rolling Mill Way to improve
accessibility. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Ms. Schutt volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 8.
Motion 9:
Mr. Patton made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) be appropriated from the Community Preservation
Fund revenues to be spent by the Canton Housing Authority for the purposes of the replacement of windows
and accompanying work on the Hemenway Apartment Building as planned in Phase IV. Ms. Mirliani seconded
the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion
Page 8 of 11Source page 9
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
Mr. Corkery volunteered to write the motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 9.
Motion 10:
Ms. Mancuso made a motion to support the Community Preservation Committee recommendation to Town
Meeting That the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) be appropriated from the Community
Preservation Fund revenues to be spent within the rules governed by the Community Preservation Act Statute,
by the Canton Affordable Housing Trust for the purposes of continuing to support the preservation and
creation of new affordable home ownership and rental units in Canton. Ms. Mirliani seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mr. Leonetti noted that he had asked Mr. Shea (Canton’s Housing Coordinator) for information on
3 specific properties during the CCPC presentation to Finance Committee and had not heard back, noting that
this information is important for him to make his decision. He added that putting $100,000 against the major
housing issues in Canton is inconsequential and is funding that could be used in other places, and he cannot
support the motion without knowing about those 3 particular developments, as them not moving forward
with keeping some of their units affordable will cause this money to not make any difference. Recording
Secretary Neff spoke as CCPC Administrator, explaining that Mr. Shea told the CCPC that the grant program
using the funds from the Affordable Housing Production Fund was too small to be of interest to those 3 large
developers, and was being geared instead toward smaller property owners and developers. Mr. Leonetti
explained that his concern was not regarding whether the grants were going to those 3 developments, but
rather whether those 3 developments are planning on continuing with affordable housing creation or seeking
refinancing as affordable housing units once their units are no longer subject to affordable housing
requirements. He noted that these housing problems that the Town is facing will require millions of dollars to
fix and the proposed $100,000 in this motion will not help with the looming issue of losing the affordable
housing units from the 3 mentioned developments. Ms. Neff replied that the CCPC had discussed the huge
scope of the problem but made this recommendation to hopefully help in some small way, rather than doing
nothing. She added that Mr. Shea has stated to the CCPC that there are backup plans for using the Affordable
Housing Production Fund monies in other ways if the current grant program should prove unsuccessful.
Ms. Mancuso asked for confirmation that, at this point, the choice before the Finance Committee was to
support the CCPC recommendation for $100,000 of funding to go toward affordable housing
creation/preservation, or to recommend against it with no Community Preservation funds going toward
affordable housing solutions in FY27. She also noted a comment made by the CCPC representative at the
2/25/26 meeting stating that this was the last item voted on by the CCPC. Ms. Neff explained that it was voted
last, but it was not a matter of not having any funds left. Rather, the CCPC looked at the projects as a whole,
determined the amount of shortfall between the requests and the available funding, and decided as a group
on what projects could be reasonably expected to move forward in some way with only partial funding.
Mr. Patton asked if the $90,000 request for Phase IV of the Hemenway Window Replacement Project fell
under housing and if voting against Motion 10 would put the Town below the 10% threshold for Housing CPA
expenditure in FY27. Ms. Neff answered that if less than 10% of funds were approved for projects in any
particular category, the remaining required funds would be put into a reserved account for future use under
that category. In this situation specifically, if the Affordable Housing Production Fund contribution is not
approved, but the Hemenway Window Project is, then approximately $16,000 would need to be put into the
CPA Housing Reserve Fund for use on housing projects in a future fiscal year.
Page 9 of 11Source page 10
Mr. Leonetti noted that Ms. Neff asserted that the CCPC had significant discussion regarding the points he
made and still voted unanimously to recommend this project to Town Meeting, which is reasonable, but he
encouraged new members of Finance Committee to think individually as it will result in more voices heard and
better-informed voters. He stated that this issue transcends the CCPC and speaks to the town-wide issue of
affordable housing and reiterated that he also has concerns about the Wentworth Survey and Wetland
Delineation as well. Chairperson Mauro asked if Mr. Leonetti felt he had enough information to vote on this
motion at this meeting, or whether it should be delayed. Mr. Leonetti responded that he has enough
information to submit a nay vote and was not proposing to delay the vote.
Ms. Mirliani pointed out that she met with the CCPC Chairperson as the Finance Committee liaison and went
through the projects in detail. She emphasized that the amount recommended to be allocated to housing
projects in FY27 was the smallest amount, and, while she agrees with Mr. Leonetti that it is a drop in the
bucket, she affirmed her belief it is better to recommend something rather than nothing, particularly as the
percentage of funds being recommended for housing is already so small.
Mr. Mauro stated that the CPA funding helps with affordable housing related costs, but he confirmed that a
very large figure is needed for major town-wide changes in affordable housing that the Town will need to
address.
The motion passed with a vote of 6-3-0 (Yea: Mancuso, Mauro, Mirliani, Patton, Thomas, and Schutt; Nay:
Corkery, Leonetti, and Wilson).
Ms. Mirliani volunteered to write the majority motion discussion for Article 17, Motion 10. Mr. Leonetti
volunteered to write the minority discussion for Article 17, Motion 10, and Chairperson Mauro suggested
when multiple Committee members have voted against a motion they should feel free to collaborate on the
writing of the minority discussion.
GENERAL BUSINESS OF THE COMMITTEE IN PREPARATION FOR TOWN MEETING
Mr. Scollins stated that the targeted deadline for all motions to be completed is March 27th, and the goal is to
have all Finance Committee votes taken by March 30th. He asked Committee members who are writing and
submitting motion discussions to CC Ms. Neff as she is tracking what discussions have been submitted.
Chairperson Mauro asked Ms. Neff to send the updated discussion assignment list to the Committee along
with a reminder of the spreadsheet link to the live document, which she agreed to do.
VOTE MINUTES
Ms. Mirliani made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 25, 2026, Finance Committee meeting as
distributed. Mr. Patton seconded the motion.
Discussion: There was no further discussion.
The motion passed with a vote of 9-0-0.
NEXT MEETINGS
The next meeting will be on Wednesday, March 18th, and the Committee will decide about next Monday’s
(3/23/26) meeting at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 10 of 11Source page 11
Ms. Schutt made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:01pm. Ms. Mirliani seconded the motion, and it passed
9-0-0.
Minutes reviewed by: Emilio Mauro
Respectfully submitted,
Emilio E. Mauro, Jr.
Chair, Canton Finance Committee
REFERENCED DOCUMENTS:
FINCOM March 16th, 2026, Agenda
Community Preservation Committee Motions
Final Board Committee Specialized Code Info Slide Deck _ Town of Canton
FINCOM Draft Meeting Minutes – February 25, 2026
Page 11 of 11