|
Lexington Home Page
|
Help
|
About
|
Browse
Search
2000-03-12-CEC-min
Breadcrumb Navigation:
TownOfLexington-Public
>
WEB PUBLISHED-PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
>
MINUTES-REPORTS-COMMITTEES ARCHIVE
>
Capital Expenditures Committee-CEC
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
2000-03-12-CEC-min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2019 12:32:30 PM
Creation date
3/6/2009 10:36:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Archives
Department
Town Clerk
Keywords or Subject
CEC - Capital Expenditures Committee
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Charles: Comments interspersed. <br /> <br />Deborah: Figure this is the fastest way to tell you what I've changed <br />in <br />the spreadsheet. -Tom G- <br /> <br />At 06:12 PM 3/12/2000 -0500, you wrote: <br />>I disagree with some of your small-ticket items. <br />> <br />>1. We decreased the FY02 portable classrooms to $225K (3 rooms). <br /> <br />Typo; fixed in attached spreadsheet, but I do think John Moynihan views <br />their small-ticket request of $300K as more of a place holder than a <br />firm <br />budget request. Wing and a prayer. <br /> <br /> <br />>2. I prefer to keep the big-ticket studies in the big-ticket budget. <br />Putting <br />>them here confuses the issue of how they get funded. If you leave them <br />in, <br />>at least mark them separately as funded through a debt exclusion. <br /> <br />All accounting for big-ticket studies is confusing, because the funding <br />base actually shifts provisionally from cash capital to big-ticket. I <br />think <br />we make our numbers impossible to follow for other Town finance people <br />if <br />we depart from the Town's method of presentation. I've responded to <br />this <br />issue in the new spreadsheet in two ways: (1) I did mark the big-ticket <br />studies separately and totalled them separately; (2) Per our telephone <br />call, I separated exempt BANs from nonexempt. Then I hid the accounting <br />hair in the BAN section. (See formulae in line 28 of sheet "Available <br />Cash <br />Capital" in the attached spreadsheet. They count as bond revenue the <br />sale <br />of exempt bonds, but do not book a penalty for the payoff, because your <br />friend, the debt exclusion has picked up the tab for you. On the other <br />hand, the formulae that calculate interest need to do so until the <br />exempt <br />BAN is paid off, just like the case with the nonexempt BAN. Argh!) <br /> <br /> <br />>3. For Street Resurfacing (Scenario 1), I intepreted the sense of the <br />>committee some time ago that the $500K + Chapter 90 + $5M debt <br />exclusion was <br />>sufficient. I've been carrying 0 for this in FY02-FY05. I don't <br />remember <br />>when (if ever) this was discussed. The VHB study does say that <br />$800K/year is <br />>enough once we spend the $5M. <br /> <br />I don't know that the Committee ever took a formal vote, but agree it's <br />the <br />rational thing to do. Hence, have changed the attached spreadsheet. By <br />the <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.