HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-8-2Minutes for August 2, 2017, adopted Sept. 27 N A N T U C
TOWN CLERK
Town of Nantucket
Capital Program Committee2017 SEP 27 AM 10: 47
www.nantucket-ma.gov
Members: Christy Kickham (Chair), Peter McEachern (vice chair), Richard Hussey (Secretary), Jason
Bridges, Nat Lowell, Pete Kaizer, Stephen Welch
MINUTES
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
4 Fairgrounds Road, Training Room - 8:00 am
Called to order at 8:18 a.m. and Announcements made.
Staff- Libby Gibson, Town Manager; Brian Turbitt, Director Finance; Julia Lindner, Financial
Analyst; Terry Norton, Town Minutes Taker
Attending Members: Kickham, Hussey, Bridges, Kaizer, Welch
Absent Members: McEachern, Lowell
Late arrival: None
Documents used: Copy of minutes for July 28, 2017; Draft FY2019 Capital Project Request Form; Draft
Prioritization with Multiple Criterion; Draft Worksheet: relevance of CIP Criterion &
requests
1. June 28, 2017: Motion to Approve. (made by: Hussey) (seconded by: Bridges) Carried unanimouslN
Welch - Wants to review the criterion and goals; the goals determine the necessary functionality.
Hussey - Stated he couldn't see a downside to the goals; asked if anyone saw a downside.
Welch - The downside is rigidity; if we adopt them, we need to stick to them to help with transparency. Tried
to think of them in terms of allocating capital resources.
Gibson - At meeting when Town Administration goes to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) about the process, it
would be good for the committee to be at that meeting to speak to this. She will work that into the schedule.
It needs to be made known that this is a more rigorous and specific process. Also, from time to time there will
be a request that ought to be reviewed by CapCom but didn't come up through the regular process such as
OIH and the sewer. There has been some discussion about putting forward the District Improvement
Financing. (DIF); projects identified as part of the DIF should go through the CapCom; currently they aren't
accounted for under CapCom.
Discussion about DIF as a method of funding for projects in a specific geographic area and whether or not it
is necessary for CapCom to review DIF projects.
Gibson - If the BOS go forward with the DIF, they might be asking CapCom to review those projects.
Welch -- We will have a form with criterion and we'll be able to hear and evaluate the DIF projects. It will
provide an opportunity to direct discussion and remain topical. The only goal not self explanatory is the last
one, "Scalable process providing for adaptation without roiling the framework." That is more Town
Administration; it sets up process that's a framework, which is readily adaptable without changing the whole
thing. This could be useful in other initiatives. By segregating criterion from request, it is easier to make
decisions by providing an accurate result of ranking.
Kiekham - Thinks the last goal could be excluded since it is more for Ms Gibson's benefit.
Motion to Adopt the Goals excluding the last goal as written. (made by: Hussey) (seconded by: Bridges)
Carried unanimously
Welch -- Explained breakdown of "Requests for projects that are required." Explained relevance ratios for
functionality and how those would be computed. This process would help eliminate favoritism and politics.
Page 1 of 2
Minutes for August 2, 2017, adopted Sept. 27
Gibson — She would like to go through the worksheet with some specific projects rather than hypothetical
ones.
Bridges — He likes the way this worksheet will present relevance to the CapCom.
Hussey — Asked if the same approach would be used for out -year projects.
Welch — Each request is evaluated whether or not it is for the current year. We can decide whether or not eye
want out -year projects evaluated or if they are just place holders.
Gibson — The costs of out -year projects will change and events might change their relevance; she prefers the
committee members have time to understand the out -year projects and decide whether or not they are in the
correct year.
Kickham — His sense is that there should be a basis for the number in a place holder; department heads
should make some effort to have as accurate a number as possible. Looking at out -rear projects is important
in regards to showing our due diligence in regards to planning.
Welch — We can rank out -year projects per relevance and include them in the report in a way that doesn't rely
on cost. The next step is to have a meeting at which everyone brings a laptop or tablet and go through the
criterion and develop the judgment scale, the priority scale, and the ranking of relative importance; he Nvill
then generate that information and distribute it as well as generate a report indicating how consistent the
group's thoughts were.
Lindner — The resources available to fund projects, we only have "Z" number of dollars. Whether a project is
funded through Free Cash or borrowing affects what projects actually go through.
Welch — Projects are ranked by collective judgment. Unless one eats up money-, one project wouldn't jump
over the others. There might be a situation where one project eats up funding but others are more useful.
Gibson — For some projects the Town would borrow and others the Town would have money in the budget
for them. If a project is such that it would "eat up funding", we would borrow for that.
Kaizer — Once everyone has ranked everything, we have a bucket of funds; asked if there is mechanism by
which one project might get jumped up so that we aren't bound by the ranking system.
Welch — There is but we haven't yet discussed the means by which a project though it ranks low would be
moved up due to funding. Where judgment and subjectivity, come in is when the committee is deciding their
personal view of the criterion.
Kaizer — Would like the verbiage on the worksheet cleaned up to be more intuitive.
Welch — He'll make the abbreviations on the worksheet to better refer to the criterion.
III.CAPCOM
1. Discussion about next meeting date: Kickham — He will find out when everyone is available; probably
after Labor Day.
IV. DATE OF
To be Announced.
Adjourned at 9:42 a.m. by unanimous consent.
Submitted by:
Terry L. Norton
Page 2 of 2