|
Chairperson Janice Snyder called the meeting to order at 4:43 p.m.
Members Present
Chris Chemerka, Director of Finance and Operations, Board of Education
Jeffrey Doolittle, Town Engineer (sitting for Michael Gantick)
Carol Driscoll, Board of Education (Vice-chairperson)
Patrick Hankard, Director of Facility Services, Board of Education
Janice Snyder, Town Council (Chairperson)
Richard Stahr, Board of Education
Members Absent
Dr. Saud Anwar, Town Council
Dr. Kate Carter, Superintendent of Schools, Board of Education
Matthew Galligan, Town Manager
Michael Gantick, Director of Public Works
Cary Prague, Town Council
Guests Present
Raymond Favreau, Director of Parks and Recreation
Scott Roberts, Director of Information Technology
3. Approval of Minutes Previous Meetings
Ms. Carol Driscoll made a motion to approve the July 25, 2012 Minutes; Mr. Richard Stahr seconded that motion; and it was approved unanimously.
Amend: In Item 4, under Referendum discussion in the third paragraph, the first sentence states “Mr. Patrick Hankard asked if the referendum questions will have the State reimbursement for the Board of Education projects already calculated into the total.” The sentence should read: Mr. Patrick Hankard asked if the narrative that appears on the ballot notes that there is State reimbursement for the projects. The amended motion was approved unanimously.
4. Discussion Items
Capital Projects Proposal Form
Chairperson Janice Snyder began a discussion about the proposal form, Exhibit A, that was used in the past by the Town. Chairperson Snyder asked Town Engineer Jeffrey Doolittle to provide some background information regarding the proposal form. Mr. Doolittle explained that the forms were used in the past. Use of the forms stopped because the Town Council was not following the plan, and there was no reference to the forms. The forms were very laborious to complete. Mr. Patrick Hankard said the forms should be much simpler.
Chairperson Snyder asked if it were possible to come up with a simpler outline for the form. Should the Committee be designing a proposal that is more generic? Mr. Raymond Favreau asked what was being looked for with regard to a proposal form. Chairperson Snyder said that the State has similar forms with many pages as well, but that some of the items already on the Town’s forms could be removed. For example, the Alternatives Considered List in Section A seems redundant since the alternatives to a proposed project most likely have been considered already.
Mr. Scott Roberts said that the nature of questions on the form is exactly what the Town Councilors will be looking for and questioning. The Councilors will want to hear the alternatives. Patrick Hankard said Mr. Roberts’ statement is exactly why the form was set up the way it was, and it still did not work. The Council asked questions about the answers on the forms, and it was frustrating. Ms. Carol Driscoll said that being prepared and knowledgeable about the proposed project is more helpful because it is not always possible to anticipate every single question that will be asked. Richard Stahr agreed with Ms. Driscoll and stressed the importance of relying on the experts who have done the research. Chris Chemerka also agreed that having more information sometimes invites more questions.
Chairperson Snyder said that with regard to ratings in Section B, previous Committee members wanted to know where the most impact would be. Ms. Driscoll said that the ratings are not an explanation nor are they measurable. Mr. Doolittle asked why they needed to rate the projects if they are just giving information. Chairperson Snyder asked Mr. Hankard if he could include something regarding a project’s return on investments in the form.
Ms. Driscoll, looking at Section C, asked if scheduling and costs is required by the Capital Improvement Plan. Chairperson Snyder said that costs are in the Capital Improvement Program, but scheduling is not. Discussion pursued over the inclusion of a project timeframe or estimated timeline. With regard to Section D, estimated costs will be provided in the project presentations. Section E, additional costs, had a suggestion that it should come from the Capital Projects Budget. Ms. Chris Chemerka suggested that including a hidden benefits section to go along with the cost savings.
Chairperson Snyder said that the draft form should be reviewed and finalized at the next Capital Projects Committee meeting. A completed form should be submitted to the Capital Projects Committee and then brought forth to the Town Council.
Implementation of New Capital Improvement Program
Chairperson Snyder thanked the Committee for their support with putting the new Capital Improvement Program together. The Program states that the Town Manager and Superintendent of Schools should submit to the Committee a Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan at least six months prior to the next fiscal year’s operating budget. Chairperson Snyder will be asking Town Manager Matthew Galligan and Superintendent Carter if they have met this requirement yet. The Committee has to start implementing the plan immediately and making it work. Ms. Driscoll asked if there was enough flexibility to allow for something unexpected, like a sinkhole. Chairperson Snyder said there were other funds for emergencies such as that which is outside Capital Projects. Mr. Hankard said that there was a code change
regarding the high school gym bleachers. The bleachers became a high priority capital project because it was either replace the bleachers or not use the gym. Mr. Favreau said that the five year plans would be reviewed annually, and projects will be moved around. Chairperson Snyder said that the flexibility of everyone working together will be very critical.
Ms. Driscoll asked if the lifespan of a project could really be determined, referencing Item 4 under Capital Improvement Plan Policies. Mr. Roberts said that fiber optic network is a challenge because it will be a debated item. Computer systems are an asset that needs to be maintained and upgraded. Each individual computer does not mean much, but as an entire system, it does. Mr. Doolittle said that paving over a road that is falling apart will only last 2-5 years before it falls apart again. Digging out the road, putting in a good base, and then repaving it will extend the lifespan of the road significantly. The Councilors want the asset to last as long as the bond will. If the bond is for twenty years, the asset should last twenty years. Discussion pursued regarding budget spikes.
Referendum Information for the Public
Chairperson Snyder gave the Committee the presentation that was shown to the Board of Education, Exhibit B. The Committee discussed the upcoming meeting with Town Attorney Kari Olson from Murtha Cullina. Ms. Olson will be at the Town Hall on September 25 at 4:30 p.m. to discuss how to legally distribute referendum information to the public. Chairperson Snyder wants to know how the Committee will get the information out to the public. The explanatory text will be sent to residents in Town. Public funds cannot be used to promote referenda, such as Town money. However, these referenda can be discussed at Council meetings and Board of Education meetings because those meetings are televised over public airways. The referenda information can also be posted on the Town website.
Mr. Roberts mentioned that he discussed with Town Manager Galligan the possibility of filming public service announcements and posting them on G-Media, which would be shown on Channel 16. He will ask Ms. Olson if that would be a legal way of getting information to the public.
A past successful referendum was a road and drainage referendum. Mr. Doolittle said there was a brochure with a one-page general description of each project. The brochure was posted on the Town website, but he was not sure how it was physically made available otherwise. Ms. Chemerka said that one of the important components of the education referendum is explaining the 47% reimbursement. Chairperson Snyder said that more clarification was needed regarding the explanatory text and what is in it. Mr. Stahr would like to see a fact sheet on all of the projects available to the public.
Chairperson Snyder expressed that she would like to see all of the questions addressed together and not fractured. The Committee is accountable for all of the projects together. Mr. Favreau liked the concept of keeping the referenda packaged as the Community Infrastructure Referendum with keeping each referendum a separate question. Mr. Doolittle suggested keeping each referendum as its own number. Discussion pursued regarding voting methods.
5. New Business
None
6. Old Business
None
7. Adjournment: A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Patrick Hankard at 5:40 p.m.; the motion was seconded by Mr. Richard Stahr; and all were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Ashley Summers
Recording Secretary
Attachments:
Exhibit A Capital Improvement Program Individual Project Proposal
Exhibit B SW Community Infrastructure Referenda Presentation
| 