HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-01-09-CEC-summit
Town of Lexington
Capital Expenditures Committee
Draft
Summit III Meeting Notes
January 9, 2003
Hastings School Gymnasium
Note: These summary minutes cover ONLY the sections of the
discussion pertinent to capital and Capital Expenditure
Committee matters, not the full meeting (which was also
attended by the Selectmen, School Committee, and
Appropriation Committee) and was duly recorded.
Committee members present: Bhatia, Burnell, Hornig,
Rosenberg, Stolz
Hornig implored the Selectmen and School Committee to adhere
to the budget timeline, making decisions so that the rest of
the schedule for January could be met, allowing the
committee to decide on capital items in parallel to
operating budget decisions.
Presenting the committee’s view of the operating budget,
with its current $5.5-million gap, Hornig made the following
points:
•Big-ticket capital items. The committee feels that
preliminary proposals for a senior center, new DPW
facilities, and renovation or replacement of the next round
of elementary schools (Bowman and Estabrook)—all tentatively
scheduled for presentation to voters for a spring 2005 debt-
exclusion override—cannot be readied for thoughtful review
for this spring’s Town Meeting. Accordingly, the committee
recommends that planning and preliminary design funds for
all these projects should be deferred from consideration at
this spring’s Town Meeting, and considered jointly at a
Special Town Meeting in fall 2003, or within the spring 2004
Town Meeting [perhaps as a Special Town Meeting, to
accelerate funding].
Selectman Enrich wondered about the implications for
scheduling the spring 2005 debt-exclusion override.
Hornig said the matter had not been discussed with all
project proponents, some of whom would clearly have
different views (the senior center and DPW would like to
proceed faster), but the committee felt fall 2003 would
surely be timely enough to discuss planning and design
funds, still allowing for detailed design and presentation
of construction plans and detailed cost estimates as
scheduled in the spring of 2005. The committee also prefers
to consider all the proposals together.
School Committee members Close and DiGiammarino
informally concurred, although reserving the right to
confirm that assessment after consulting their formal
timeline.
•Cash capital. Hornig noted that the cash capital
policy (5% of prior year general fund revenues) would yield
$613,000 [Town Manager’s data vs. committee”s $632,000]
after debt service; the forthcoming large debt issuance
would provide a firmer number, with actual rates.
But that sum would be $150,000 lower than the FY 2003
funding—and of the $613,000 for FY 2004, some $216,000 would
be exposed to a possible override in the the Selectmen’s at-
risk list: a full one-third of the funding available. Vs.
the $613,000, the committee faced requests for $2.3 million
of projects. The committee clearly felt that having already
reduced cash capital funding from the amount previously
available, the Selectmen should not cut it further, and that
cash capital ought not be mingled with operating items in an
operating budget override; unlike operating programs, the
cash capital items could not be made to go away (a leaking
roof would continue to leak, perhaps even spoiling the floor
of the gym where the Summit meeting was taking place), and
the amount of funding likely to be available would be even
more constrained in following years. Moreover, borrowing to
meet cash capital needs was a financial form of delay, again
hitting subsequent, and possibly more constrained, operating
budgets in future years. Given commitments to close the
landfill, buy a new fire engine, readapt Cary Hall for
public use post-library, and fix leaking roofs and cracking
foundations (at Hastings, again), we had to recognize that,
yes, the cash capital policy was broken, yielding too little
cash for the recognized needs—but no, it could not be fixed
by putting in even less funding.
Selectman McKenna pointed out that the at-risk number
was not yet prioritized by the Selectmen; that they had
rejected a proposal to cut $100,000 in cash capital funding
outright; and queried whether some sum ought to be added to
the operating override proposal to fund future cash capital
needs, as was done for road repairs in the prior operating
override.
Hornig said the committee never wanted to turn down
essential funding, but understood the need to keep the
operating override request as small as possible, and
therefore had not pursued this possibility in detail.
Burnell raised two issues: unless the override request
for cash capital were large, it would be just a fraction of
what was needed; and such funding could be a shell game, as
future Selectmen rely on that funding to reduce funding
within the operating budget (i.e., future Select Boards
cannot be bound to maintain te commitment). Capital
requirements need to be understood and funded within overall
Town financial needs, commitments, and funding.
School Committee member Griffiths thought the idea had
merit.
Bhatia felt its success depended on identifying a
recurring need that voters could understand, as they had in
endorsing road funding. Would Building Envelope needs do the
trick?
In much later discussion, as the Selectmen and School
Committee talked about one- vs. three-year operating
overrides and the difficulty of securing voter support for
intangibles (flexible free cash, funding in an operating
ovrride now against the contingencies of further
deterioration in the economy or state aid in 2005 and 2006),
Rosenberg posed two issues: going to a one-year operating
override, and possibly another one in the following year or
two, clearly also put at risk the three-year debt-exclusion
cycle Enrich mentioned, where DPW, schools, and the senior
center would ordinarily be expected to come before voters in
the spring of 2005; and relative to McKenna’s proposal, and
the difficulty of getting voter support to fund intangibles,
what specific capital program could voters be asked to fund,
through an operating override, as a recurring, identifiable
need?
Hornig again urged the meeting leaders to make progress on
such issues as one- vs. three-year override and whether this
year’s operating budget would or would not be funded using
$1 million of free cash. [Such decisions were deferred to
the Selectmen’s meeting Jan. 13, School Committee meeting
Jan. 14, and Summit Jan. 15—raising the possibility of
ANOTHER Summit in the Jan. 23-29 period.]
Meeting adjourned 9:50 p.m.
John S. Rosenberg