2018-05-16-CEC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Y Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting May 16, 2018 APRIL 19'" �d N4i„'47�r Location and Time: Cary Memorial Building, Ellen Stone Room; 7:45 A.M. Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; David Kanter, Vice-Chair & Clerk; Sandy Beebee (arrived 8:00 a.m.); Rod Cole; Wendy Manz; and Frank Smith Members Absent: None Others Present: Melissa Battite, Director, Recreation and Community Programs; Christine Dean, Director, Lexington Community Center (LexCC); Peter Coleman, Assistant Director, Recreation; Rick DeAngelis, Chair, Recreation Committee; Lisah Rhodes, Recreation Committee; Mike Cronin, Director, Department of Public Facilities; Sara Arnold, Recording Secretary Documents Presented: • Notice of CEC Meeting, May 16, 2018 • Draft #3 Minutes of the CEC Meeting, April 25, 2018 • CEC Input to the Board of Selectmen's (BoS's) Goals Setting for Fiscal Years (FYs) 2018 & 2019, June 16, 2017 • Draft of DGK Suggestion, 16 May 2018, for CEC's Input to Lexington's BoS's FY2019-FY2020 Goals, prepared by Mr. Kanter Call to Order: Mr. Lamb called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Kanter presented the Draft #3 Minutes of the CEC meeting, April 25, 2018. A Motion was made and seconded to approve those Minutes as presented. Vote: 6-0. (Ms. Beebee's vote was added after her arrival) Discussion of the LexCC Campus Expansion as it Related to the 2018 Annual Town Meeting (ATM), this Committee's Report to that ATM, and the Town's Capital Program Execution and Planning: Members of this Committee provided to Ms. Battite a more-in-depth explanation of the reasons this Committee opposed the request at that ATM for $250,000 to move forward on a LexCC expansion plan. The comments included, but were not limited to, the following: • It was not clear whether the requested funds were to be used for schematic design or enhanced conceptual design; there were inconsistencies between the Capital Improvement Project request, subsequent public statements, and the Motion presented to that ATM. • Although the envisioned scope of work seemed to change between the fall of 2017 and that ATM, there was no adjustment in the funding request. The amount needed for the design work should be relevant to the size of the project—which was not the case for this project; and the availability of funds from the Recreation Enterprise Fund for just the first funding should not be a determining factor. • Modeling for funding the project's follow-on debt service had not been done. • The FY2019 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan (White Book) did not include this request, indicating that it was not supported by senior Page 1 of 4