2005-10-24-AC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

October 24, 2005 d. The request for approximately $144,000 for D&E for roofs and HVAC under Article 6 would not be made. The schools would reprioritize a currently approved appropriation and use those funds for this work. 4. CEC members joined the meeting to discuss the Special Town Meeting issues. Charles L. reported that he had participated in a tour of the LHS Gym roof and believes the D&E money is needed in order to get a quality bid. He also reported that the School Committee was working on reprioritizing the 2005 ATM Article 30 appropriations and thus freeing up the $144,360 for the D&E on these projects—eliminating having to ask for additional funding at the STM under Article 6. CEC supports this approach. 5. CEC reported on the progress of ongoing projects: st a. Clarke energy — the 1 half of the project is under way (EMS system & lighting nd controls) and the 2 half of the project (refrigeration, rooftop condensers) is being submitted to NSTAR for approval. b. School Administration Building—the Permanent Building Committee has selected the architect, with unknown cost estimated. c. DPW Barn—The PBC is narrowing down architects prior to selecting one, and costs are ball parked at $10–12 million. 6. The meeting recessed at 5:55 , moved to the Selectmen’s Meeting Room to join the PM summit, and went back into session at 6:07 . It was reported that the Article 4 request PM would be for $528,178, Article 5 would be for $847,396, and Article 6 would be indefinitely postponed. Helen Cohen (Lexington School Committee) stated the committee’s position that the additional requested Article 5 funding would only be used to fund the identified deficits and all unspent money would be returned. Any new deficits would be covered by the current appropriation. This also assumes that all surpluses are also applied to the identified deficits. Dr. Paul Ash (Lexington School Superintendent) estimated that the worst-case scenario that could still arise for SPED could be as large as an additional $220,000, and that 10–14% of discretionary funds would be encumbered as a method of reserving money for this contingency. Selectman Peter Kelley asked this Committee’s opinion of whether to ask for this appropriation at the STM or at the ATM in April 2006. Alan L. reported that the majority of the Committee was in favor of a STM appropriation. This action would give the Town Meeting the flexibility to support or reject school requests. Eric M. reported that he did not vote with the majority, and he was still withholding his opinion until he understood the funding sources and whether reoccurring revenue was being used to fund reoccurring expenses. - 2 -