2023-10-12-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting October 12, 2023 Page 2 of 3 acquiring the balance that is necessary. They plan that the first two years will just be addressing what data is needed and the most efficient means to achieve it. Mr. Cole followed that while the data collection is challenging, the analysis of it will be another challenge. He asked what are the plans on making that analysis an efficient process. Ms. Peard acknowledged that challenge and, in those first two years, will be working to determine which of the data is necessary and constructive—with eliminating that which isn’t. Mr. Cole followed up with what is the funding budget for the outside acquisition and analysis of the data. Ms. Peard said there is no defined costs, but that will be developed during those initial years and identifying what actions are essential and which aren’t. Some funds may be available from the Sustainability and Facilities budgets, and then expect to be submitting a Program Improvement Request. Mr. Lamb asked how much of that are they expecting to feed into the Facilities 5-Year Capital Plan. Ms. Peard said they don’t now have a funding plan, but will be depending on those first years to provide a valid level of further out-year funding. Mr. Cole added that he would expect those first years will identify where early funding includes some less expensive items to address, rather than waiting for full implementation. Mr. Lamb endorsed that and offered that if that program is productive, it’s input should be expected to have bearing in all multi-year plans—5-year and those out to a 25-year. And if promising, that kind of effort is one this Committee would likely support. Mr. Kanter asked whether they have seen a comparable project and, if so, what has that affected in your outlook for what you are proposing. Ms. Peard said no, but expects such integrated work such as we’re proposing will evolve elsewhere as, for example, electrification becomes a principal driver. Mr. Kanter followed up with asking whether Mr. Cronin, the Director of the Facilities Department, has offered his positions on this proposed endeavor. Ms. Peard said he has been a supportive player in this process and, as always, he has a concern regarding his staff level. However, all involved are looking for those initial two years to reveal just what the post-proposal will mean in all associated matters. Mr. Kanter, and then Mr. Lamb raised the point that the project’s reports, year by year, are expected to continue to “sell” this endeavor in the applicable Capital Improvement Projects (or Programs). Ms. Peard responded that she appreciates that their distribution of their periodic reports should include this Committee so we can have applicable information upon which to develop our support. Mr. Boudett asked whether a consultant was available for creating those reports. Ms. Peard advised that currently none, they would be developed in house; however, as that starting 2−year period evolves, a need my be developed. Mr. Kanter asked whether the application of the project would range beyond just the conventional Facilities funding. Mr. Lamb raised that many buildings apply to the Town’s Community Preservation Committee for use of the Town’s Community Preservation Act (CPA) funding. Mr. Cole added the Town’s Community Center as another facility using CPA funding. Ms. Peard said she welcomed that point and they would pursue it.