Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01-18-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Remote-Participation Meeting January 18, 2024 Page 1 of 3 Location and Time: Remote-Participation Meeting; 8:00 A.M. Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; David Kanter, Vice−Chair & Clerk; Sandy Beebee; Mike Boudett; and Lisah Rhodes Member Absent: Rod Cole. Others Present: Marilyn Fenollosa, Chair, Community Preservation Committee (CPC); Tom Case, Administrative Assistant to the CPC, Rosalyn Impink, Lexington Budget Officer; Glenn Parker, Chair, Lexington Appropriation Committee; Robert Pressman, Member, CPC; Melissa Battite, Director of Recreation & Community Programs. Documents Presented: • Notice of Public Remote Meeting/Agenda CEC Meeting, January 18, 2024 • CPC Slides for the 2024 Annual Town Meeting • Draft Minutes for the CEC Meeting, January 11, 2024 Call to Order Mr. Lamb called this Remote (Virtual) Meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. As the Committee members and the others joining this meeting had been previously advised of the special conditions of this meeting, he passed on repeating them (i.e., the authority to not require a physical presence of a quorum and other selected terms under the Open Meeting Law had, by legislation on March 29, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 2025, pursuant to Chapter 22 of the Acts of 2023). Mr. Lamb advised that the recording of this meeting is solely to aid in the preparation of the Minutes for this meeting and will be destroyed when this Minutes is approved. Mr. Lamb made a Roll Call of the Committee Members and found 5 Members present. Mr. Lamb advised that as the CPC slides had previously been made available to all the Members, he would initiate the following discussion of this meeting by asking each of the Members if they had questions. Ms. Beebee said that as our liaison to the CPC, she attended most of those meetings and, at this point, had no new questions. Ms. Rhodes said she, too, had been familiar with that data and had no new questions. Mr. Boudett asked, on a big picture, what Ms. Fenollosa felt was the biggest challenge facing her committee, now or in the near future, and how can our Committee help. She thinks it will be a matter of trying to accommodate all the funding requests that are asked of the CPC. The Affordable Housing Trust (AHT) made a large request this year ($3,200,000) but significantly less than its identified projections for funding by it in FY2025 ($8,350,000), which could not have been accommodated in any way close. Significant this year was the fact that we faced reduced overall Community Preservation Act (CPA) available funds. Although there was a small increase in the Town’s funding for the CPC, there was an about $1 million reduction in the CPA funding as there was no end-of-calendar-year supplemental funding as Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Remote-Participation Meeting January 18, 2024 Page 2 of 3 has been the common prior practice in recent years and there was an increase in communities adopting the CPA which reduces our and other prior existing CPCs’ shares in the annual distribution. So we have this situation of shrinking revenue and increasing demands for funding. That is the continuing challenge. Last year there were no really hard choices; there were this year, and she expects that they’ll continue to be hard. She provided examples of this year’s cuts and some expected to continue next year and beyond. She welcomed that the repayment of prior CPA debt will be finished in this year’s plan, but there will likely be additional debt issued for the Munroe Center for Arts project that will kick in once the prior appropriation is funded. She asked Mr. Boudett if he had questions. He did regarding the AHT out−year funding. Ms. Fenollosa said their next year’s request—a projected $6.5 million request—can’t be accommodated—at least not in full—when there are some parallel projected requests. Mr. Lamb requested at that point if anyone in the CPC addressed those next and later−cited need amounts. Ms. Fenollosa said the “Looking Forward” section of this year’s “Need Assessment Report” had projected project amounts from the project proponents, although many of those amounts were speculative. A majority (6 members) of the CPC had supported inclusion of the projections in the Needs Assessment Report and 3 members were opposed. For example, the AHT had originally listed $8 million —in projected funding needs, and when asked for the basis for that amount as well as the final $3.2 million there was no basis provided. The CPC discussed the project needs entered for the rest of the 5-year plan and it was agreed that of those out-year amounts, and the several To Be Determined (TBDs), very few had demonstrated justification. Returning to Mr. Boudett, he thanked Mr. Lamb for his questioning and then continued with having heard that Housing had been underfunded. Ms. Fenollosa advised him that the required CPA “bucket” for Housing funds hadn’t recently been used since no Housing requests had been submitted to the CPC—which is the start of consideration—and that prior requests had been fully funded. She then further explained the CPA requirement about the three 10% mandatory allocations into “buckets” each year—Housing, Open Space, and Historic Resources—with the balance received going into Undesignated Reserves. As an example, Recreation does not have a “bucket” so all of their CPC-approved funding comes from the Undesignated Reserves. Mr. Kanter said he was pleased a 5-Year Plan had begun, but agreed that much of the out-year contents were not credible. He looks forward to such a Plan with enhanced credibility. As for projected debt to fund, he remains most often opposed. And while he recognizes that as a policy matter the CPC tries to maintain an unrestricted balance of each year of $2 million, he can accept a smaller amount below the $2 million. Mr. Lamb called for public comment and Mr. Pressman indicated his concerns about various housing matters—from inaction occurring many years ago to actions by what is now the Select Board. Minutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Remote-Participation Meeting January 18, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Mr. Lamb again thanked Ms. Fenollosa for beginning his long-pleaded need for the 5−Year Plan. It will well serve both her Committee and the other elements of the Town’s financial management. Member Concerns and Liaison Reports Mr. Boudett, as our liaison to the Sustainable Lexington Committee, reported on its recent meeting. He advised there was a lot of discussion about various Clean Energy Initiatives and involving kids from Lexington High School and Middle School and frustrations with the State Building Authority being behind Materials Requirements for school buildings and also behind reimbursement of solar—a concern held by the Sustainable Lexington Committee. Mr. Kanter said that as to Mr. Pressman’s expression of the many housing-matters, over many previous years, that he says were not addressed by what is now the Town’s Select Board, it should be clear that none of them was a responsibility of this Committee. That fact should be acknowledged when housing matters are presented to the Select Board for its attention. And as for his mention of the current Stone Building project, at last-year’s Annual Town Meeting, this Committee was unanimous in its opposition. Approval of Minutes Mr. Kanter Moved, and it was Seconded, to approve the Draft Minutes of the CEC Meeting on January 11, 2024. Roll Call Vote: 5–0, Adjourn At 8:40 A.M., a Motion was Made and Seconded to adjourn. Roll Call Vote: 5–0 This Minutes was approved by the CEC at this meeting on January 25, 2024.