2003-01-16-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the lead?) The issue of encouraging the town to clarify responsibility for town building management, and committee support for that effort, was left open, and the committee voted 4-1 to put the building envelope study on the priorities list above the DPW trucks. Burnell suggested adding Hastings roof repair ($88,000) to the priorities list. It was decided to defer doing so, since the schools felt that it was a next-year item, and that a need for a school-system-wide roofing plan was the first order of business. This leaves the committee recommendations different from the CBT recommendations because the committee took elements of the Building Envelope (not the whole thing as CBT did) and of the DPW vehicle requests (skywalker vs. CBTessentially took none); the committee would spend less money; the committee listed Buckman Tavern but CBT did not. As to funding, CBT anticipated borrowing half for the firetruck in the hope of not having to borrow because delivery in FY ’05 would allow cash funding in that year’s cash capital allocation. How much spending and borrowing to recommend? If LHS acoustical work proceeds in anticipation of SBA reimbursement, that will be borrowed, and depending on payback, could cut into available cash capital stiff further. Countercyclically, one would like to borrow now and pay back in better times, but the practice over the past few years has been precisely opposite, squeezing matters now. Short-term borrowing, with 3-5 year payback, depletes cash especially quickly. Overall, the committee is leaning toward less borrowing (Bhatia suggests up to $900,000 vs. the current working assumption of $790,000) and less spending, to preserve capacity for the next two years. Other financing questions: •CAN money be borrowed for the landfill closing (not sure)? •If the fire company is put at risk, is it worth buying a new engine? •What will the town pay on its upcoming large long-term borrowing; if under the 4.5% assumed, can that money be retained for capital spending? [But see below: the Summit override agreement nominally calls for any further savings from cost reductions or revenue enhancements to be used to accumulate free cash, not to reduce the size of the override or to recapture spending cuts!] In light of tepid enthusiasm for most projects not being funded, the committee is inclined to control spending.