1990-10-BOS-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

$0 #W^ Selectmen's Meeting �5- October 15, 1 990 CLT PETITION, QUESTION #3 -- -- + - M r . White referred to an a n a l y s i s of the effects on cities and towns of the Citizens for Lower Taxes (CLT) Petition ( Quest #3 on the b a l l o t of the November 6 State El prepared by the Dept. of Revenue, Division of Local Services. The report estimated revenue loss at State level if CLT passes to be $1.355 billion for FY' 91 , and that most m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would receive a 21.3% decrease in local aid. Lexington's mid FY91 reduction would be $780,000, with almost twice that expected for FY92. He also noted a request from Moody ' s Investor Service for provision of information by cities and towns to allow assessment of the credit i mp l i cations of the CLT I n i t i a t i v e . He asked that both perspectives be taken into consideration when coming to a decision on the Board's position on Question #3. Mrs. Smith pointed out that although it is not often that the Board takes a formal position on a Referendum Question, she felt it important to do so in this case. She noted the drastic effect of the CLT petition, if approved, on Public Works, Public Safety, Human Services and the School system, adding that the petition is more than just a firm message to the State, as so many voters seem to think. Mrs. Smith's draft position statement opposing Question 3 had been distributed to the Board. Mr. Eddison voiced his support of the statement and said he felt it important to take this stand in the interest of the Town. Mr. Dailey said that he supported the gist of the statement but added that if Lexington would not be so badly impacted by its passage, he would have supported Question 3 as a message to the Legislature. Mr. McSweeney agreed with Mr, Dailey and asked, in view of comments from many c i t i z e n s , if the Board would also be taking a stand on Question 5. Mrs, Smith felt that the draft being considered that night should convey only a statement on Question 3. Mr. Marshall pointed out that it was important to keep in mind how badly the economy has deteriorated during the 18 months since Question 3 was framed. He agreed that the Board should also make its position known on Question 5, which he supports. He asked that the Board's position statement on Question 5 be placed on the agenda for October 29. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted to approve the draft statement in opposition to Question 3 of the ballot for the November 5, 1990 State Election. SPECIAL TOWN MEETING ARTICLE Mr, White referred to the Special Town Meeting which is proposed for November 28, to deal with the P i n e Meadows development and other matters. A draft article , prepared by the Planning Director and Town Counsel regarding the conveyance of land and rezoning of land at Pine Meadows, was reviewed.