A proposal to establish a land acquisition fund, which would also establish a new committee aside from the Community Preservation Committee, did not get approval during Tuesday night’s Community Preservation Committee meeting.

The Community Preservation Committee had previously looked at the proposal during a meeting on July 7, and, during that meeting, committee members developed a list of questions directed at the Town.

Town Administrator David Cressman attended this month’s meeting to address those issues during a public hearing.

The idea behind the proposal was to hasten the rate at which properties could be acquired, which can only happen twice a year at Town Meeting, to be used for conservation, recreation or agricultural purposes.

“The Town should have some type of fund in some ready resource that, if issues arise, there’s a means of addressing the issue,” said Cressman. “If the community believes that preserving open space and creating recreation opportunities are important, then the Town should put funds away for that purpose.”

He said that, because there are limited ways to pursue funds for land acquisition, the new fund would set aside money acquired through the Community Preservation Act to ensure that properties could be purchased.

A seven-person “Recommending Committee” would have oversight of this process, drawing together representatives from the Select Board, the Conservation Commission, the Community Preservation Committee, the Board of Parks and Recreation, the Agriculture Preservation Trust Council and the Agricultural Commission.

“The Recommending Committee will convene to discuss the potential purchase and make a recommendation to the Select Board and Conservation Commission, who upon consultation with the Community Preservation Committee, shall make the final decision,” said Cressman.

The language of the draft drew ire from those in attendance. Diane Gilbert, president of the Dartmouth Heritage Preservation Trust, said there may be some “noble goals that come out of the proposal,” but she was concerned the proposal would add more bureaucracy to the land acquisition process.

“I would argue that the Community Preservation Committee already has representatives from some of the groups that you want on the land [acquisition] committee,” said Gilbert. “Reforms and improvements might be made through the Community Preservation Committee. You’ve got all the players here.”

Howard Baker-Smith, Chair of the Community Preservation Committee, was concerned the language of the proposal would ultimately sidestep Town Meeting voters, who approve or disapprove how Community Preservation Act funds will be used.

“On the other hand, there’s still some good wisdom in some of the things you were trying to get at,” said Baker-Smith. “I think one is setting aside funds.”

After 80 minutes of discussion during the open hearing, the Community Preservation Committee did not recommend the establishment of the land acquisition fund as it was proposed.

“The committee members, in general, think the process has been responsive,” said Baker-Smith. “We have been able to acquire and preserve land. There have not been significant failures due to the process, which is available to folks twice a year.”