Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-20-AC-min January 20, 2005 Minutes Town of Lexington Appropriation Committee January 20, 2005 Present: Members: Rod Cole, Deborah Brown, Paul Hamburger, Rick Eurich, Eric Michelson, John Bartenstein, David Kanter Nonmembers: Richard Pagett, Jane Pagett, Tom Griffiths At 7:35 DB called the meeting to order in the Reading Room, Cary Hall. PM th Minutes: The final edits for the minutes of Jan. 6 were not ready, and will be discussed at the next meeting. Moody’s: DB said thatCinder McNerney (Sr. VP, First Southwest Co.), the town bond advisor, called to report that the town retained both the Aaa rating and the negative outlook. The final word from Moody’s has not been received. Lexington still has the lowest reserves of all 13 towns with a Aaa rating, and below many towns with lower ratings. Much of the discussion revolved around the question of what is Moody’s most sensitive to, and how to structure the budget so it appears in the best light. For example, it might be better to be less conservative regarding revenue estimates and budget no free cash, rather than budget free cash and use conservative revenue estimates to build back free cash. Both approaches are equivalent, but appear different on a budget spreadsheet. Budget relief from Capital: There was a discussion of how Capital Expenditures might be able to free up $478K. There is $713K in that part of the budget that could theoretically be freed up by not taking on capital projects. One member of the CEC has suggested forgoing $478K. It is not known if the committee as a whole would support such a move. JB asked about the future possibility of grouping small projects that are normally funded out of the operating budget to get bundles large enough to put into debt exclusion overrides. There was a discussion of the trade-offs versus current practice, principally loss of flexibility. Action: Ask John Ryan about the feasibility of this idea. JB then raised the question of could capital be put off for a year to free up a large sum of money. Paul answered that most of the money in that item is committed and the total uncommitted amount was $713K. COLA issues: DK raised the issue of COLA amounts. RP stated we need a very low COLA amount. No COLA was paid this year. The current budget estimate uses a 2.5% COLA, but there is no way to do this. Lowering the COLA is really the town’s only opportunity to lower costs other than letting people go. January 20, 2005 TG explained that negotiating COLAs is very hard because of the requirements to bargain in good faith. It was pointed out that bargaining in good faith did not require giving away money you do not have. RC pointed out that in Marblehead COLAs are subject to Town Meeting appropriating money for them, and last year they did not. It was not known if such language is in the Lexington contracts. DK asked, doesn’t this mean moving to larger class sizes? RC recalled the Superintendent’s comments at the last budget summit meeting that the amount for meeting the class size goal was about $800K and only half of that amount was contractual, and the other half was simply a desire. TG agreed in general, but was not sure of the specific breakdown of the $800K. TG explained that the issue of mandated class size is simple in the elementary schools, but is more complicated in the high school where the biggest crunch is. Other school issues: The discussion then moved to how teacher contracts are negotiated and formulated. There is no current salary contract. Recent practice has been to set top salary for different classifications (e.g. Masters, Masters plus 30 hours of class credits, etc.) at or above the median for 10 comparable systems. Further, the top salaries are reached at 12 years of experience, rather than the more common 16 years. It was noted this brings the median salaries in Lexington rather higher than simply the median of the 10 comparable towns. Pro forma question: PH asked about the differences between the 2005 school and town expenses and the 2006 requests, $960K for schools and $220K for the town. RP replied that on the town side it was flat plus increases in utility costs. TG replied that on the school side it was $525K for increased utilities plus some increased SPED outplacements which are very variable year to year plus some other things. Contract timing: DB inquired about the timing of contract negotiations. th Schools: TG said the next session is February 10, but he did not expect resolution then, but hopeful that they would be complete by Town Meeting. Town: Linda is talking to the two lead unions, but there does not seem to be any push on the union side to get things moving. The Town is not pushing either. The unions want to wait until the schools finish as they hope to use the school contracts for leverage. RE came back to the COLA issue and asked, if the unions are not in a hurry to resolve the contract issues, why not zero out the COLA in the budget? Budget process question: DK voiced an objection to the school committee not following the guidelines all sides agreed to in the beginning of putting together a level-staffing budget and a needs-based budget. There was some discussion regarding whether or not the needs-based budget was needs or if it was really a level-staffing plus growth budget. TG pointed out that there was only one budget because the SC had already voted on going forward with only one budget. He pointed out that the while the desired information for trade-offs is not in the Pro Forma format, it is in some of the supporting documentation. January 20, 2005 Free cash: TG asked for a sense of where the committee sat on the issue of either using $400K of free cash, or adjusting up revenue estimates by $400K. It was agreed that the committee needed more information on the need to do so, and that we had no formal position, but that in general the mood was favorable. Appropriation Report for Town Meeting: The following Warrant articles were assigned to the following people: 15 (Municipal Lighting Plant) – EM 16 (Property Tax Exemptions ) – JB 18 (Tree Planting and Maintenance)/19 (Tree Revolving Fund) – RE 21 (Conservation Land Acquisition )/22 (Middlesex County Open Space) – JB 23 (Land Acquisition) – EM 24 (Water Distribution Improvement )/25 (Sanitary Sewer Improvements)/26 (Playgrounds and Recreation Facilities Improvement)/27 (Lincoln Park Restroom Facility)/28 (Pine Meadows Improvement)/29 (Supplementary Appropriations for Authorized Capital Improvement Projects)/30 (Upgrade Traffic Control Signals, Intersection of Maple and Lowell Streets)/31 (Rescind Unused Borrowing Authority)/34 (Capital Projects and Equipment) – DK, DB, RC 32 (School Capital Projects)/33 (Maintain and Upgrade School Technology) – RP 35 (Prior Years’ Unpaid Bills) – AL, PH, DB 36 (Supplementary Appropriations for Current Fiscal Year (FY2005)) – AL 37 (Stabilization Fund) – PH 38 (Operating Budget) – AL (Minuteman Tech, EM) 39 (Use of Funds to Reduce the Tax Rate) – AL rdth First drafts March 3, final draft March 10 The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 . PM Respectfully submitted, Rod Cole Acting Secretary Approved January 27, 2005