Laserfiche WebLink
Breadcrumb Navigation:
replenishing (or reducing utilization of) the stabilization fund or supporting capital <br />purchases. <br /> <br />Longer-term considerations. <br /> Whatever decisions are made to resolve any potential gap <br />that may arise in the already-appropriated FY 2010 budget and the currently forecast gap of <br />approximately $4 million in the FY 2011 budget, there are significant longer-term issues to <br />be weighed at the same time. <br /> <br /> Reserve replenishment. As the stabilization fund monies are spent, credible <br />commitments need to be made to restore them. In its response to the 2006 Financial Policy <br />Review Committee recommendations, the administration made explicit the importance of <br />“a specification of the number of years to return the fund to its target level when it is drawn <br />down below that level.” (The target balance is approximately 7 percent of general fund <br />revenues—implying, at the current size of Lexington’s government, a stabilization fund of <br />close to $10 million, and more as the budget itself grows.) <br /> <br /> Capital priorities. Looking ahead, several large capital projects are already identified <br />on the town’s agenda (as noted above). <br /> <br /> Retiree benefits. In the wake of the FY 2009 decline in financial asset values, the <br />next actuarial valuation of the pension plan assets may require a stepped-up appropriation to <br />put Lexington back on track to full funding of these obligations. In addition, the town had <br />begun to fund its other post-employment benefit obligations (retiree healthcare). Funding of <br />those obligations may need to be budgeted as a regular item in the town’s financial planning <br />horizon. <br /> 10 <br /> <br />