2009-07-10-FTF-rpt - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

•We have not always reached consensus on how best to proceed. That is to be expected where there are differences of opinion on Lexington’s best options, informed by diverse values and interests. It is all the more so in the current economic context, where the fiscal outlook is highly uncertain. Where our discussions have revealed alternate courses of action, we have tried in this report to illuminate those alternatives and their underlying rationales, the better to inform the public debate and decisions that lie ahead. •It will be tempting to focus debate, above all, on the disposition of the stabilization funds that Lexington has wisely accumulated to see us through “rainy days”—or even more threatening storms. How to use these reserves naturally looms as an important decision. But it is not the only issue—nor, in the long term, may it even be the most consequential issue for Lexington’s fiscal health and the strength of the community we cherish. •The annual budget imposes a familiar and welcome discipline. But any decisions we make have short- and longer-term consequences. Do we fund current operations by deferring maintenance and repair of our physical facilities and infrastructure—potentially incurring higher costs in the future, when borrowing costs may be higher? Do we tighten current operating budgets so severely that we choke off innovations that deliver both near- term savings and enhanced services (such as investing in in-school special-education programs, or in energy-conservation systems)? How do we allocate stabilization fund resources for current needs, while maintaining a margin for potentially worse fiscal circumstances in succeeding years? Finding the proper balance—more art than science— will involve nimble, responsive, inclusive, and public-spirited work by all of Lexington’s stakeholders. 6