1988-03-BOS-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

s All agreed that the Management Report and Staff Response was well prepared, and was clear, concise and informative. Mr. Eddison thanked the Auditors and the Comptroller for their pre sentat ion . APPROPRIATION CUW+s 7= Michael O'Sullivan, Chairman of the Appropriation Camnittee, met with the Board for clarification and discussion on positions on financial articles. Mr. O'Sullivan referred to expense budgets for Town goverromt, Police, Fire and Public Works; Human Services requests; and Articles 29, Property Valuation; Article 33, Parking Study; and Article 34, Center Plan. He reported that his Cammittee concurs with the Selectmen regarding the proposed increase of funds to RePlace. The Cammittee also supported Article 29, but had questions about the Parking Study and the Des ign Guidelines for the Center ' They felt that other areas and other parking provisions in Town may also be worthy of study. The Camrattee is generally disposed toward reconstruction of the tennis courts and supportive of the renovation of the Library. Regarding the School Budget, the camnittee had had no discussion of the FY proposals. Mr. O'Sullivan referred to a 1986 memo from him on the subject of the Personnel Advisory 's recatimendation for coordination in health care costs, fringe benef its ■ productivity, f air and equitable opportunities, staff development and growth. He pointed out the impact of the School Camtittee' s current budget requests on then financial areas in Town ..� o government. g He referred to the 1988 Report of the Appropri at ion Committee which gives facts on Lexington's Historical Financial Perspective; Caripar ability Historical Financial Perspective and Fiscal Policy Codification. He said he hoped the report helps to rejuvenate efforts to enlighten Town Meeting as to what is going on here and in other towns. A sheet showing data of ranking of towns in tax levy changes and levy per capita from FY81 to FY87 was distributed. Target reductions for the FY89 budget of $840.00 were projectedo, if there is no agreement reached between the Selectmen and School Cannittee on its budget proposal and the scenario reccmmemded reviewed. The Camnittee advised against going into Free Cash to resolve the problem. The Can ittee had supported the 1985 proposal to purchase Pine Meadows and saw value in keeping it as open space. There was a suggestion that sale of the Landfill area for devel be considered ■ which could aid in the School Budget and Pine Meadows dilemmas. Mr. Eddison said he felt that the Selectmen and the Finance Camnittees were not all that far apart in views on financial articles and in support of the Town Manager's budget. Regarding the proposal for Design Guidelines for the Center, he felt the Camnittee should withhold judgement pending presentation of all the background and facts. He felt it was a modest cost for real benefits which would be provided. Regarding a broader scope for the study to include other areas, Mr. Eddison pointed out that it would cost even more and saw the need to first test what can be done with the Center. Later, if the effort is successful, it could be extended to other parts of town. Also discussed was possible use of free cash and proposed cuts to acc to a School budget increased by 9 1/2 %, if that is not adjusted downward.