Minutes of the Infrastructure Investment Fund Board
August 18, 2010
IIF Trustees Present:
Deb McDonnell Chair, Paul Challenger, Ed Benoit, Al Berg,
Peter Lacy, Dawn Machanowicz, Jim Dunn
Also Present:
Jackie Kelly, Ass’t Town Mgr, Jean Berg, Treasurer/Collector
The meeting was held in the Starbard Building, Selectmen’s meeting room and was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
The minutes of the meeting of February 2, 20010 were reviewed and accepted as written. Peter Lacy abstained.
Jean Berg, Town of Holden Treasurer, then reviewed the most recent Infrastructure Investment Fund pro forma as of August 18, 2010. The FY 10 year end balance was $1,251,984 in the main fund and $642,111 in the sub fund for a total of $1,894,095 in the entire fund. It was noted that at draw down for current projects and anticipation of one additional project in next several years, the account will be severely depleted unless additional revenue is found above current projections. Document attached. Mrs. Berg noted this would be the last time she would be representing the Town on the Board as she was retiring at the end of August, 2010.
Assistant Town Manager, Jackie Kelley, then handed out several documents relating to the need for renovation, addition, and/or replacement of components of the Mt. View School. The first document, dated November 13, 2008 was submitted to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA), by the Wachusett Regional School District (WRSD).. Follow-up correspondence dated September 30, 2009 from the MSBA inviting the WRSD to collaborate with the Authority on a Feasibility Study for Mt. View. A reply from the WRSD dated June 10, 2010 stated the Town and the District have agreed to pursue a Feasibility Study for the Mt. View School. The Town Manager, Nancy Galkowski, has requested that the IIF participate in evaluation of the need for such work, by funding the Feasibility Study which is projected to cost approximately $675,000. Ms. Kelley said it
is hoped to have a request to conduct the study ready for a Town Meeting vote in November, 2010. It was noted that although the WRSD is solely responsible for the care and maintenance of school buildings, historically, the towns within the region have been responsible for construction of new buildings or major renovations or repairs of existing school buildings within their respective communities.
Considerable discussion ensued with regards to the IIF taking on such a task. Although it was clear from the discussions that the IIF was not challenging the propriety for a Feasibility Study, the use of the IIF as the funding source was of great concern. As noted in the earlier balance sheet discussions the fund is not projected to carry any significant balance in future years. Several projects have already been identified as important to the Town infrastructure, most notably the need for a new DPW, severe shortage of space and age of our Town municipal offices, and ever growing needs of our Recreation Department, all of which have been identified in the Town Master Plan as high priority and anticipating IIF involvement. Another important consideration noted was the precedent of funding a feasibility study under the IIF. Although it could
be justified under the broad scope of the Fund’s authority, the Fund Board has historically restricted approval to projects that would be, in of themselves, physical assets to the Town.
Alan Berg made a motion that the IIF not participate in funding the Feasibility Study for Mt. View School as it is not within the current IIF priorities and is not commensurate with our historic funding use. Peter Lacy seconded the motion. The motion carried with 6 yeas and one opposed-Paul Challenger.
Then Jim Dunn, as requested from the previous Board meeting, submitted a draft Policy on the use of the asset management sub-fund of the IIF. (Document attached). The draft was based on discussions previously held regarding lack of direction for use of these funds. The draft policy proposes use of the fund for projects that were of a demonstrated need but what would not be normally considered under conventional funding or historic IIF use, and would enhance the “Quality of Life” within the community. It is deliberately open ended to allow some discretion to the Board on proposed projects. After a brief discussion where members agreed Jim had done a very good job in capturing previous comments, a motion was made by Paul Challenger to accept the document defined as the:
Asset Management Sub-Fund of the Infrastructure Investment Fund
Project Funding and Debt Service Policies
The motion was seconded by Peter Lacy. The motion was carried unanimously
Motion to adjourn was made by Jim Dunn and seconded by Deb McDonnell and unanimously accepted. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
ASSET MANAGEMENT SUB-FUND
of the
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND
PROJECT FUNDING AND DEBT SERVICE POLICIES
A. The Town of Holden has, by vote of the May 21, 2007 Town Meeting, established an Asset Management Sub-Fund, inside the confines of the Infrastructure Invest Fund.
B. This IIF AMSF was activated with an initial appropriation of $316,355 derived from the sale of Town owned property.
C. The purpose of the AMSF was stated only generally at its inception, but the clear intent was that AMSF was to be used to purchase, acquire, construct, develop, enhance, repair and/or otherwise accomplish projects for which there was a demonstrated need and for which other conventional, including the IIF, funding strategies were not available or appropriate. The AMSF would be used only for very special projects. In concept, AMSF projects would be those which would be dedicated to improving ‘Quality of Life’ for Holden residents, whereas typical IIF projects are more of a more critical necessity. Appropriations from the AMSF were to be presented to Town Meeting for approval.
D. Because the AMSF exists only as an accounting vehicle under the IIF, it is subject to all the legal restrictions applicable to IIF. Specifically, expenditures from the AMSF must meet the same criteria of MGL Chapter 44 which apply to the IIF.
E. The following procedures are applicable to the Holden IIF AMSF:
1. Proposals for expenditures from the AMSF may be made by any interested party. Proposals will be made to the then sitting IIF Board of Trustees.
2. The IIF Board of Trustees will consider each proposed project and determine: a.) Whether the proposal meets the criteria of a very special project outlined above, b.) Whether the proposal will benefit a majority of the residents of Holden, and c.) Whether the funding mechanism proposed for the special project would put at risk the future ability of the AMSF to accomplish similar projects. A favorable majority vote of the IIF Trustees will move the proposal forwarded to the next available Town Meeting warrant.
3. Town Meeting will consider the proposed project and if a two-thirds majority approves, the expenditure will be considered approved and the Town Manager directed to accomplish it with all practical speed.
| 
