Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
March 3, 2005 <br /> <br />Page VIII-22 of the budget book has information on the tree population of Lexington. <br /> <br />Discuss/Approve Minutes <br />4. : Postponed <br /> <br />Reports on other meetings <br />5. : Postponed <br /> <br />Report and Town Meeting – Article by Article Discussion <br />6. : <br /> <br />Article 7: Adoption of Community Preservation Act: <br /> <br />The following excerpt of Al Levine’s email to Bob Bicknell sent Tuesday, March 08, <br />2005 9:59 PM, describes our discussion and action on this article. <br /> <br />“It was my sense that everyone on the Committee thought that two items are <br />missing that would be extremely useful for determining what kind of backing the <br />CPA deserves. The items are: <br /> <br />1) a list of projects that have either been completed or are presently in progress <br />that would have been eligible to receive CPA funds, so as to help ascertain <br />whether the CPA would be funding projects that are so high in priority that <br />they would be done w/o CPA assistance, and <br /> <br />2) a tentative best-effort list of items to be funded by the CPA in the first few <br />years, say 5 to be definite, that it is effective. <br /> <br />Some sentiment was expressed during your presence that the 3% surcharge <br />received by the CPA will compete with other needs of the Town like schools and <br />public safety services, and that the CPA should only receive support if the items <br />to be funded by the CPA are to be judged of priority at least as high as these <br />things that compete for this 3% margin. Item (1) above would give the best <br />indication of the importance of the CPA items to be funded. <br /> <br />Given this sense, the Committee took a few minutes to make a motion that would <br />properly express our sentiment. It was (with apologies in advance if I did not <br />record this with perfect accuracy): <br /> <br />Moved that the Appropriation Committee is unable to support the adoption of the <br />CPA at this time because of the absence of a tentative list of projects whose <br />priorities can be evaluated relative to the other needs of the Town. <br /> <br />The Committee voted 8-1 in favor of this motion.” <br /> <br />Article 8: The consensus of the meeting was to not take a position and to not request that <br />a member of the Appropriation Committee be appointed to the Community Preservation <br />Committee. <br /> 2 <br /> <br />