(4-8-25 Document #7) FinCom Minutes 3-16-26 (EM)

Word document text

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 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.

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 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 5th 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 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 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 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 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
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.

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
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