2019-06-05-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting June 5, 2019 year, but it needs to be clear whether Mr. Malloy is suggesting a less-conservative budget process that could then allow additional funds to be appropriated into the CSF. II. Operating Budget • Page 11: b. Tax to the Levy Limit: There was considerable discussion about the pros and cons of taxing to the limit. Mr. Lamb asked about establishing how excess levy capacity would be used if the Town did not tax to the limit. Ms. Beebee asked what other towns are doing. It isn't clear how Mr. Malloy would use excess tax revenue if budgets are less conservative, but the Town continues to tax to the levy limit. In the past, the Town has added available funds to the CSF for future use, but Mr. Malloy may be wanting to use such funds for the operating budget. • Page 12; d. Personal Property New Growth: Mr. Kanter noted that there is no real audit of Personal Property. The others present suggested that it was best to leave this as it is currently handled. • Page 14; g: Within Levy Debt Service: Mr. Kanter noted that this again raises the question of taxing to the levy limit. • Page 15; is Revenue Allocation Model: Mr. Kanter suggested that this needs to be better understood, noting that both the municipal and school departments fully budgeted their allocated revenue for FY2020. This was not the case in prior years when excess Allocated Revenue provided for additions to the CSF. • Page 16; I: School Enrollment Projections: Mr. Kanter wondered what projections Mr. Malloy believes should be used. • Page 16; m: Snow and Ice Budget: Mr. Kanter needed clarification of how the end-of-year use the Reserve Fund, controlled by the Appropriation Committee, for covering expenses that exceed the amount in the Town-Meeting approved budget would affect the next year's Operating Budget, as dictated by State regulations. He noted that the fund has had $900,000 allocated to it in recent years, but these funds have rarely been completely, or even seriously, tapped. III. Capital Budget • Page 17; a: Definition of Capital Project: Mr. Kanter noted that the $25,000 expenditure minimum can be an aggregated cost, such as for computer equipment. • Page 17; b: Prioritized Capital Plan: Mr. Kanter expressed interest in understanding the criteria that Mr. Malloy plans to use for prioritizing projects and suggested that the Capital Improvement Project (CIP) forms that are prepared by staff may need to extend beyond five years if the Town is going to make 5-10 year projections. He noted that new CIP software is expected (if not already in use) and wondered if this Committee could have input into the CIP design changes—some of which have been long-term requests by this Committee. Ms. Colburn noted that other towns have score sheets, which may be useful to review. With the page-by-page overview completed, it was agreed that, based on a unanimous straw vote, the Committee supported taxing to the levy limit and not changing the process for the Personal Property tax determination. The Committee emphasized that more information is Page 3 of 4