HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-19-CEC-min
CEC, 10/19/05, 10 AM TOB 111
CWL, SS, WH, TE, GB, Jeanne Krieger, Paul Ash, Bill Hartigan, Deb
Brown, Michael Young, Olga Guttag, Tom Griffiths, Dawn McKenna, Pam Hoffman
School Capital presentation
Ash discusses overview of what's been done to date since he came on
board. Consultants have looked at roofs (prior to Hartigan coming on
board). "The Building Doctor" opened every air handler, univent, etc
at all but 2 schools.
Discussion of $66K (supplemental FY06) of HVAC work labeled as capital
(consensus is that this is really operating) and $144K (also
supplemental FY06) of planning money for LHS science/gym and diamond
auditorium roofs with project money to be appropriated in FY07 at ATM.
Notes that the fire curtain in the LHS auditorium is an "exposure"
that they're going to look at.
On the topic of the FY06 STM article 6 capital request:
Ted: Can the Bobcat $'s that were appropriated last ATM for FY06 be used
for this instead of for the bobcat?
Discussion of whether unspent $'s can be used from FY06 article 30.
CEC asked SC to examine this.
Ted: How will $144K for STM article 6 be funded.
TomG: suggests debt.
Michael Young: We earned $1.8M on secondary school arbitrage. It will
go into Free Cash.
Deb Brown: Appropriation Comm. has not discussed where STM funds will
come from.
CWL: Will schools look for D&E at STMs in the future or will the
ongoing cycle be to look for D&E at ATM and then request project funds
a year later?
Ash: Unclear. He somewhat prefers using the STM vehicle because he
would prefer not to appropriate money for a project that won't get
done until 15 mos later.
CWL/GB: prefer ATM route with no STM.
CWL: Was it just univerts that were inspected?
Bill Hartigan: only "end-user" equipment so no generation equipment
(e.g. boilers) were checked.
CWL: Does School Admin/Comm. anticipate refining the $500K of Unknown
expenses by ATM? [yes]
Deb Brown: There's a philosophical question regarding the $1.8M.
e.g. since it came from arbitrage on debt exclusion funds, should it
be used for reducing the debt exclusion debt?
Krieger: is any of the work eligible for energy grants?
Hartigan: Yes, possibly. Univents at LHS won't be rebatable by NStar
sin they are not electric heat.
Technology Capital Requests
Priority 1 upgrade network infrastructure. Pri 2, Desktop computers.
Ash: Aspires to a 6-year replacement cycle. At current funding levels,
would take until FY14 to do that. So for now they'll put the money
into the network infrastructure and servers. He recognizes that the
$400K request will be more than has been appropriated/requested in the
past.
CWL: Recalls that LCD projectors might be able to be paid for by a
grant. Has any of that happened?
TomG: doesn't remember anything about LCD projectors under a grant.
Olga: no LCD projectors have been put in LHS except piecemeal. There
are no grants for this kind of thing other than "in-town" by LEF or
the PTA.
CWL: Will the Tech. Review Comm change any of the plans set forth in
the 5-year plan presented?
Ash/TomG: SC and School Admin will examine that.
CWL: raises point that traditionally the issue of how to fund
technology (operating vs capital) has been raised.
Ash: from his point of view it's capital because if you build a
building and put computers in it then it's bondable.
GB: Same as shrubs except that the week after you open the building,
the shrubs are operating.
GB: gives opinion that tech should stay in capital.