HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-17-CEC-minMinutes of the Lexington Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC) Meeting
Date, Place, and Location: January 17, 2012 9:00 a.m., Cary Memorial Building, Ellen
Stone Room
Members Present: Charles Lamb, Chair; Ted Edson, Vice - Chair; Bill Hurley; Shirley Stolz;
David Kanter
Other Attendee: Dawn McKenna, Chair, Lexington Tourism Committee
Documents Presented:
1. "Fiscal Year 2013 Town Manager's Preliminary Budget & Financing Plan ",
January 9, 2012 (the "White Book "), Appendix A, Program Restoration /Improvement
Requests
2. Mr. Lamb's E -mail, January 11, 2012 17:16:05 EST, Subj: CEC Positions on Several
Capital Requests ", to the Chair of the Board of Selectmen (BoS); the Chair of, and
Administrative Assistant to, the Community Preservation Committee (CPC); the
Town Manager; the Assistant Town Manager for Finance; and the Chair of the
Appropriation Committee
Mr. Lamb called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.
Review of FY2013 Program Restoration /Improvement Requests
The Committee discussed which of the requests the Town Manager was not recommending
with a focus on those that, although part of the Operating Budget, might have Capital
implications. The one that was noted in that regard was the Department of Public Work's
request for a $10,000 Ballfield Maintenance Program (Line 3310, Public Grounds).
Re -Visit of FY2013 Visitor Center Renovations and Expansion Project
In response to the Committee's previous decision not to support this project for the FY2013
budget, the Committee welcomed Ms. McKenna's return visit to further discuss the project.
She provided the Committee with background on the development of the project and her
discussions with Carl Valente, the Town Manager. She pointed out that the general tax -levy
portion ($137,269) of the $255,000 request is included in the White Book pending the BoS
decision on whether to support that funding. (The project is one of seven that are in that
budget as "requiring further deliberation ".) While the CPC's preliminary vote on
January 9, 2012, was unanimously opposed to recommending to the 2012 Annual Town
Meeting that the $117,731 balance of the project's funding be from the Community
Preservation Fund (CPF), Ms. McKenna hoped that its further deliberation would lead to
support. Ms. McKenna asked this Committee if there were more information it needed and
is there any way that this Committee would be willing to support the project for the FY2013
budget.
Ms. Stolz asked whether Ms. McKenna thought that tearing down the current building and
building anew was a better alternative. Ms. McKenna said the building has been found to
be sound by Selectman Peter Kelley and former Town Engineer Peter Chalpin.
Page 1 of 2
Mr. Kanter said he needs no additional information. While he agrees with those that believe
something should be done to the building, he isn't convinced that all that is being requested
is the proper scope for the Town to undertake; therefore, he remains opposed to the project
and doesn't support the requested FY2013 design & engineering (D &E) funding.
Ms. McKenna said that she believed that what would be done under the requested funding
would provide for such a consideration of an alternate scope. Mr. Kanter responded that he
believed the scope questions should be resolved before going into full D &E. Ms. McKenna
said that, perhaps, she and the Chamber of Commerce had provided too much information.
Mr. Kanter said that he didn't consider that to be the case — rather that the scope hadn't yet
been properly vetted —and that Ms. McKenna should appreciate that the CPC practice has
been to vote on the project scope before them, not one that may later evolve.
Mr. Hurley said the proposal as we have it would be nice to have, but the price tag is high
and considering the other Capital projects asking for funding, this project does not rise to be
a priority for him.
The Committee left its position unchanged: Even if the BoS voted to support the project
including the funding gap if the CPC remains opposed to recommending the requested
portion from the CPF —this Committee does not support the current request.
Review of the Minutes of the Meeting on January 10, 2012 After a discussion to ensure the
language regarding the deliberations on the LexHAB Set -Aside for Housing Acquisition was
appropriate and the incorporation of changes recommended by members, a Motion was
made and seconded to approve those Minutes, as amended, along with any editorial -only
changes that Mr. Kanter may find necessary. Vote: 4 -0 -1 (Mr. Hurley abstained)
Review of Committee Positions on Capital Items Prior to the Budget Collaboration- Summit
Meetin (scheduled for tomorrow, the 18 : The Committee reviewed its positions taken
on the Capital items in the White Book and affirmed that our primary concerns still had
been properly represented in our Chair's e-mail of January 11, 2012.
Next Meeting: It was agreed that unless some topic came to our Chair's attention by the
day after tomorrow (the 19 "), the Committee saw no need to meet next Tuesday (the 24 tH )
and the currently posted meeting for then would be cancelled.
Adjourn: A Motion was made and seconded at 10:00 a.m. to adjourn. Vote: 5 -0
These Minutes were approved by the CEC at its meeting on January 31, 2012.
Page 2of2