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