2023-11-30-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Pressman asked if the project could just deal with the stacks. Ms. Stembridge explained that aside from the stacks, the area’s safety is also impacted by its u-shape and limited sight line due to the bathroom’s location. Mr. Pressman stated that in his opinion the two meeting rooms do not need work and that the rugs in the corridor and children’s room are not worn out, but added that he is willing to support the split-funding option because it does not impact the other applications presented to the Committee. Ms. Stembridge commented that the current meeting spaces have deficiencies for the needs of the programs that are held there and added that the type and size of the library’s program have expanded past what the rooms were originally intended to be used for. Mr. Pressman asked “so, we should cut from housing and we should cut from recreation?” Ms. Fenollosa replied that if there are cuts, it would have to be a decision of the Committee. Ms. O’Brien added that there are not many places for youths and teens to hang out aside from the Community Center and expressed support for the importance of the project. The Committee discussed the alternative funding plan that fully funds the library with CPA funding. Ms. Kosnoff explained that fully funding the library would require cutting about $1.7 million total from other projects in the Unbudgeted Reserve bucket. Ms. Fenollosa asked the Committee if they were prepared to work with the funding plan that split the library funding or if they wanted to explore cuts to projects in order to fully fund the library. Mr. Creech questioned if the AHT needs $3.2 million in one year, expressed that the LexHAB’s exterior paint project at Wright Farm does not need to be painted, and added that he does not believe that the LHA’s residing for 561/563 Massachusetts Ave is necessary. Mr. Creech asked about the process LexHAB used to determine what projects they need to complete. Mr. Pressman and Ms. Fenollosa responded that they have a professional who assesses their ongoing capital needs. The Committee discussed LexHAB’s requests and agreed to seek more information regarding the Wright Farm Exterior Painting project, but do not find it necessary to require additional information from LexHAB on the other elements of their application. Ms. Walker commented that the Committee was shifting too much between topics, and noted that the original discussion was whether to work within the parameters of the first funding option. The Committee agreed to work within the parameters of the first funding option, split-funding the library between CPA and the General Fund. Mr. Pressman asked Ms. Kosnoff if there is typically debt funding for capital within the tax levy. Ms. Kosnoff explained that there is always some debt financing for capital projects, but noted that the Town has made improvements in terms of reducing overall debt financing. Ms. Kosnoff added that because the library project is a one-time construction project, it makes more sense to debt finance a portion of it than certain other projects in the Town’s capital plan. Mr. Kanter noted that there is a difference between capital projects and capital programs and that the standard methodology is to debt-finance projects, not programs. Ms. Fenollosa asked Mr. Kanter about his experience and thoughts on the CPC’s $2 million reserve policy. Mr. Kanter stated that the $2 million reserve was conceptualized as a good practice for the CPC, but 6