HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-04-04-ATM-AC-rpt1APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE
TOWN OF LEXINGTON
1St REPORT TO THE
2007 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
Released April 4, 2007
Appropriation Committee Members Fiscal Year 2007
Alan M. Levine Chair • Deborah Brown Vice-Chair
Robert N. Addelson (ex-officio; non-voting) • John Bartenstein • Rodney E. Cole
Richard Eurich • Pam Hoffman • David G. Kanter • Michael J. Kennealy • Eric Michelson
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Summary of Warrant Article Recommendations
Abbreviations: GF =General Fund; EF =Enterprise Fund; RF =Revolving Fund
CPA =Community Preservation Act Fund; BAN =Bond Anticipation Note
An entry of "Indefinitely Postpone" in the right-hand column merely signifies our expectation.
Ar-
Title Funds Requested Funding Committee
ticle Source Recommendation
Accept MGL Chapter 32,
Section 7(2)(a)(iii)
(Accidental Disability-
17 Payments to Dependent None Approve (6-3)
Children)-and Section
9(2)(d)(ii) (Accidental
Death-Payment to
Dependent Children)
Accept MGL Chapter
18 32B, Section 18 None A rove 9-0
pp ( )
Medicare Extension
(
Plans)
Accept MGL Chapter 71,
19 Section 37M (Joint None Approve (9-0)
Facilities Department)
21 Appropriate FY2008 GF To be addressed in a
Operating Budget subsequent report
A ro riate FY2008
pp p $6,078,058 Water EF +
22
Enterprise Funds $7,346,035 Wastewater
EF Approve Requested
Bud ets
g EF + $1627 705 Amounts 9-0
( )
Recreation EF
Petition General Court to
Increase Income Limits
23 for Property Tax None Pending
Deferrals (Citizens'
Petition)
24 Appropriate for Senior $40 000 GF X40 000 9-0
( )
Service Pro ram
g
Continue and A rove
pp Approve the
25
Departmental Revolving
See detail
RF Requested
Funds Reauthorizations &
Authorizations (9-0)
Appropriate the FY2008
Community Preservation
X1,264,599 (see detail)
26 Committee 0 eratin
p g $1466199 CPA +90,000 (Pending)
Budget and for CPA
Projects
Page 2 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Ar- Funds Requested Funding Committee
ticle Title Source Recommendation
27 Land Purchase -Off N/A CPA Indefinitely Postpone
Lowell Street (9-0)
28 Land Purchase -Off N/A CPA Indefinitely Postpone
Adams Street (9-0)
Appropriate for
29 Recreation Capital $265,000 EF $265,000 (9-0)
Projects
Appropriate for Battle
30 Green Flagpole GF Pendin
g
Maintenance (Citizens'
Petition)
Appropriate for
31 Municipal Capital $3,236,200 GF X3,236,200 (see detail)
Projects and Equipment
Appropriate for Water
32 Distribution $1,800,000 EF X1,800,000 (9-0)
Improvements
33 Appropriate for Sewer $1300 000 EF X1300 000 9-0
( )
Im rovements
p
GF (910,000
to be self
$3,010,000 (this total financed 100%
A ro riate for School
pp
p amount is consistent by projected $3 010 000 9-0 vote
'
( ) (
34 ,
Capital Projects and with the outcome of the
B
ll
d
t C
b
t ever savin s
gY g
1 f .
applies to all the
E ui ment
q p ora
ion-
u
ge
o
a [
ive subelements
)
Summit Meetm 5
g ~ subelements •
l~
March 15, 2007) X2,100,000 by
conventional
financing
Appropriate for Senior $35,000 (Transfer
35 Center Previous GF X35,000 (8-1)
Design/Conceptual Study Appropriation)
36 Appropriate
for Public Excluded Debt To be addressed in a
.
Works Facility subsequent report
37 Appropriate for Post GF To be addressed in a
Employment Benefits subsequent report
38 Rescind Prior Borrowing To be addressed in a
Authorizations subsequent report
Establish and To be addressed in a
39 Appropriate to Specified GF
subsequent report
Stabilization Funds
40 Appropriate to GF To be addressed in a
Stabilization Fund subsequent report
Page 3 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Ar- Funds Requested Funding Committee
ticle Title Source Recommendation
41 Appropriate for Prior GF To be addressed in a
Years' Unpaid Bills subsequent report
42 Amend FY2007 GF To be addressed in a
Operating Budget subsequent report
Appropriate for To be addressed in a
43 Authorized Capital subse went re ort
q p
Improvements
44 Use of Funds to Reduce GF To be addressed in a
the Tax Rate subsequent report
Page 4 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Table of Contents
Summary of ~Uarrant Article Recommendations ................................................................................. 2
Preface ................................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7
Warrant Article Analysis and Recommendations ................................................................................ 9
Article 17: Accept MGL Chapter 32, Section 7(2)(a)(iii) (Accidental Disability-Payments to
Dependent Children)-and Section 9(2)(d)(ii) (Accidental Death -Payment to Dependent Children)
.............................................................................................................................................................. .. 9
Article 18: Accept MGL Chapter 32B, Section 18 (Medicare Extension Plans) ............................ 10
Article 19: Accept MGL Chapter 71, Section 37M (Joint Facilities Department) ......................... 12
Article 22: Appropriate FY2008 Enterprise Funds Budgets ............................................................ 13
Article 23: Petition General Court to Increase Income Limits for Property Tax Deferrals (Citizens'
Petition) ................................................................................................................................................ 16
Article 24: Appropriate for Senior Service Program ......................................................................... 17
Article 25: Continue and Approve Departmental Revolving Funds ................................................ 19
Article 26: Appropriate the FY2008 Community Preservation Committee Operating Budget and for
CPA Projects ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Article 27: Land Purchase-Off Lowell Street ................................................................................. 26
Article 28: Land Purchase-Off Adams Street ................................................................................. 26
Article 29: Appropriate for Recreation Capital Projects ................................................................... 26
Article 30: Appropriate for Battle Green Flagpole Maintenance (Citizens' Petition) .................... 27
Article 31: Appropriate for Municipal Capital Projects and Equipment ......................................... 27
Article 32: Appropriate for Water Distribution Improvements ........................................................ 34
Article 33: Appropriate for Sewer Improvements ............................................................................. 34
Article 34: Appropriate for School Capital Projects and Equipment ............................................... 35
Article 35: Appropriate for Senior Center Design/Conceptual Study .............................................. 38
Page 5 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Preface
This year the budget process has resulted in a scheduling squeeze on both ends; a complete budget was
only arrived at on March 21, and the Town Meeting deliberation on the financial articles-and
adjournment-must be completed by the end of April if a referendum on an operating override and a debt
exclusion is going to be scheduled in the first week of June. Therefore, discussion of the non-operating
financial articles is, at the moment, planned to start earlier than the discussion of the operating budget
article. Given the circumstances, we will publish our recommendations in several reports rather than in
one comprehensive report. This is the first of those reports. The topics covered include our
recommendations on requests for capital expenditures, on the enterprise funds, on certain non-financial
articles which have financial implications, and on the other financial articles with the exception of the
Operating Budget (Article 21), the Department of Public Works (DPI Facility project (Article 36), and
Articles 37 through 44.
We do not attempt to present information that has been presented in other accessible forms to the Town
Meeting. In particular, the Town Manager and staff have given an excellent overview of the estimated
revenues and proposed expenditures for FY2008 in the "FY2008 Recommended Budget & Financing
Plan," dated March 23, 2007 (the "Brown Book") (which has been distributed to all the Town Meeting
members and is available online for all those with Internet access at
httpalci.lexington.ma.uslTownManagerlBudget/budgetrecommended08.htm). The Superintendent of the
Lexington Public Schools has also presented detailed information on the Schools Budget (available online
at httpa/lps.lexingtonma.orgl). Overviews from the Town Manager, Superintendent, and staff, as well as
many details on the nuts and bolts aspects of the budget, may be found in these materials. Another
important reference for this Town Meeting is the report of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC)
(also available at httpalwww.lexingtontmma.org) which naturally contains much useful information on
the proposed appropriations for capital projects. In addition, Appendix C of the Brown Book describes the
role of the Appropriation Committee and includes a glossary of financial terms.
As in past years, we participated with the Board of Selectmen, School Committee, and CEC in a series of
budget collaboration/summit meetings. Those meetings have continued to be excellent opportunities to
discuss the most salient budget issues and for us to give preliminary advice to the members of the other
boards and committees.
This year we again want to say that it has been a pleasure to work with Town Manager Carl Valente,
Assistant Town Manager for Finance Rob Addelson, Budget Officer Michael Young, Superintendent of
Schools Dr. Paul Ash, and Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Operations Mary Ellen Dunn, the
Board of Selectmen, the School Committee, the CEC, and the Community Preservation Committee
(CPC). We also thank the many other municipal and school staff, Town officials, and citizens who have
contributed to our work in a wide variety of ways. Their contributions have been invaluable even though
we do not acknowledge them individually.
Page 6 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Introduction
From a financial point of view, this year has turned out to be even more challenging than last year. Of the
four Proposition 21/2 override questions posed to the voters last June, only two passed. The result has been
an especially tight year for the Lexington Public Schools. Two Special Town Meetings were convened
last November: one to contend with large increases in special education costs beyond those anticipated a
year ago, and the other to continue the process of working toward full approval of the construction of new
DPW facility. The School Committee has recently voted a budget in which a substantial portion of the
proposed increase will be contingent on the passage of a Proposition 21/2 override in June. The next few
years promise to be equally challenging. We will comment on many of these issues and on the general
financial condition of the Town in more detail in a later report.
This is the first year in which the CPC has engaged in a full, year-long, process of soliciting requests for
Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, of reviewing the requests, and of making recommendations to
Town Meeting. The CPC has recommended a substantial number of interesting projects for funding. (For
details, see the discussion under Article 26 below.) Nonetheless, it has been difficult for all parties to
adapt to the schedule set up by the CPC. A number of projects that could have been funded with CPA
funds were not identified in time to be submitted for CPC review. Those projects, totaling $108,500, are
included in the municipal capital budget and are to be funded, if approved, by non-CPA tax-levy funds.
(We comment on each of them in our discussion of the articles in which they appear: Article 31(b) has
$38,500; Article 31(j) has $35,000; & Article 31(k) has $35,000.)
Even though we may be giving our approval at this time for those projects, we are not happy with this
situation. We strongly recommend that in the future all potentially-CPA-eligible, municipal and school
capital requests be identified and reviewed by the responsible Town departments sufficiently early in the
budget process so they can be submitted on a timely basis for CPC review. To responsibly fund
improvements to Lexington's infrastructure, the Town staff must internalize the new reality that many
needed projects qualify for funding with the use of CPA funds. We commend the CPC for establishing a
clear and definite review process. However, after the Town Meeting concludes, we recommend the CPC
consider, in light of a year of experience, adding mechanisms to their formal process to consider late
changes and late requests that may be justified on an emergency basis. We feel it is crucial that, along
with new attention to the matter by the Town departments, the CPC be proactive to assure proper
consideration is given to all CPA-eligible projects in the Town's 5-year capital plans.
A number of years ago, the Board of Selectmen adopted the "5% cash capital policy" under which 5% of
General Fund revenues would be dedicated to pay for within-levy capital expenditures either immediately
(in "cash") or through debt service (principal and interest payments on borrowings). The policy is subject
to a number of interpretations and has not always been followed, notably in the last four fiscal-years'
budgets. Nonetheless, it sets a benchmark that indicates, albeit roughly, whether the Town is catching up,
staying abreast, or falling behind in terms of capital investment. This year, proposed "cash capital"
investments seem to have fallen short of the benchmark. According to our calculations, for FY2008 the
policy would set a target of very close to $6M of which $2.2M would be available for cash or debt-service
financing of currently recommended projects after covering the debt service on previously approved
projects. The Town Manager's recommended budget includes only $1.3M of General Fund cash for
capital projects-about $0.9M less than the amount called for by the 5% policy. In fairness, it should be
noted that the recommended budget also includes substantial funds for capital projects from the enterprise
funds, the CPA, the Parking Fund, Chapter 90 aid (State aid for roads), and the Town continues to pay
debt service on those projects whose debt is excluded from the limits of Proposition 21/x.
It is clear that the Town's capital-investment needs and policies are themselves in need of evaluation. It
maybe that we need a new and more appropriate benchmark to determine whether enough is being spent
Page 7 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
on the maintenance and replacement of the Town's capital assets. Last year, the Selectmen's Ad Hoc
Financial Policy Committee recommended that the Town "undertake detailed analyses of the various
asset classes of the Town's fixed assets to quantify the annual level of investment needed to sustain each
asset class." It is not clear, without the detailed analyses of asset classes just mentioned, that the
cumulative capital expenditures in FY2008 are adequate to keep the Town's overall capital asset
maintenance liability from growing.
In the first version of his recommended budget, the Town Manager included a preliminary list of capital
projects for the schools totaling just over $2M. The School Department later revised its proposed capital
budget to include projects totaling over $4.SM, but there seemed to be no way to finance more than the
original $2M without having an unacceptably high level of debt service in FY2009. Some of the school
projects are intended to yield reductions in energy usage and hence are expected to generate savings
relative to the energy that would be used otherwise. After this Committee analyzed the tradeoff between
the costs for debt service and the savings that could be generated for energy-saving projects in general, we
concluded that such projects may be highly cost-effective even if the standard return-on-investment
numbers seem rather long. The net financial benefit of an energy-saving project depends on the amount
and term of the debt (e.g., 5, 10, or 20 years), the borrowing interest rate, the rate of escalation of energy
costs, and the amount and time profile of the reduction in energy usage. Projects with return-on-
investment times of even 5 years or more can have not only a good net return over time, but also generate
a positive cash flow even in the first year of principal payments. These considerations suggest that the
Town should be aggressive when considering investments to save energy. However, when it comes to real
projects, one must be cautious about projecting energy reductions and cost savings; this is where the
uncertainties of the real world are most evident and where it becomes difficult to apply the results of
theoretical financial calculations. In any case, the potential for significant financial savings through
energy-reducing investments is relevant to evaluation of the school capital projects (which are under
Article 34) and the construction of new buildings.
Road and street maintenance have, in recent years, been funded by a combination of State aid under
Chapter 90 (approximately $700K per year, but not reported on the Cherry Sheets); $SOOK per year
following approval of that amount as part of the 2001 override; and $7M (cumulative) of debt
authorization that was approved as part of a debt exclusion referendum in 2002. It is our understanding
that only a small portion of the $7M authorization remains to be expended. This year, under Article 31,
there is a request for funds to support engineering design work for the reconstruction of Woburn Street.
The actual construction is anticipated to cost more than $1 M. This raises the issue of how that
construction might be funded, and whether the Town should put forward a debt exclusion next year or in
the next few years to fund road maintenance beyond that fundable by the Chapter 90 and 2001 override
funds. A debt exclusion could also be put forward that would address funding of sidewalk construction,
tree planting, and possibly other items. We note that the Town has, for a number of years, attempted to
follow a policy in which capital requests over $1 M are to be funded through debt exclusions although a
number of projects costing over $1M have not gone that route. These issues should be jointly discussed
by the major boards and committees and Town staff in the forthcoming year.
This is also the appropriate place to remind everyone that major investments will need to be made to
reconstruct the Barnes house (the White House) for some presently undetermined purpose, for the long
term use of the old Harrington elementary school, for a larger and more functional senior center, and for
the reconstruction or major renovation of three or four elementary schools. Voter approval through a
Proposition 21/~ debt-exclusion referendum will be required for each of these major building projects.
Page 8 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Warrant Article Analysis and Recommendations
Article 17• Accept
MGL Chapter 32 Funds Requested Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
,
Section 7(2)(a)(iii) None Approve (6-3)
(Accidental
Disability-
Payments to
Dependent
Children)-and
Section 9(2)(d)(ii)
(Accidental Death
-Payment to
Dependent
Children)
The Lexington Retirement Board has requested that Town Meeting accept two provisions of the
Massachusetts General Laws, M.G.L., Chapter 32, Sections 7(2)(a)(iii) and 9(2)(d)(ii). The first requires
the payment of a supplemental dependent allowance to a governmental employee who is forced to retire
prematurely because of a personal injury sustained as a result, and while in the performance, of duties as a
governmental employee. The second mandates payments to dependent children where an employee has
died as the natural and proximate result of a personal injury sustained as a result, and while in the
performance, of duties as a governmental employee. Town Meeting cannot accept the second provision
unless and until it has accepted the first.
Section 7(2)(a)(iii)
Section 7(2)(a)(iii), if accepted, requires the Town to pay an employee who must take early retirement
because of an injury sustained while working for the Town, in addition to "regular" retirement benefits, a
yearly supplemental dependent allowance for each of that employee's children who is a dependent at the
time of that injury. The statute defines dependent children to include any unmarried child who is under
the age of 18, who is over the age of 18 and under the age of 22 and is a full-time student at an accredited
educational institution, or who is over 18 and physically or mentally incapacitated from earning on the
date of the employee's retirement. The retired employee receives this annual supplemental dependent
allowance so long as his child remains a dependent, as defined by the statute.
The supplemental dependent allowance is increased, on an annual basis, by acost-of-living adjustment
(COLA) determined by the Massachusetts Legislature. Currently, the supplemental dependent payment is
$648.48 per year. Once Town Meeting accepts Section 7(2)(a)(iii), that acceptance cannot be revoked.
The Town has, over the past several years, made supplemental dependent allowance payments to five
qualifying retirees under this statute; however, no record demonstrating Town Meeting's prior acceptance
of this statute has been found. Accordingly, Town Meeting is being asked to accept this statute "for
housekeeping purposes." During calendar year 2007, a total of $6,484.80 will be paid to the five retirees
who, among them, have ten children qualifying as dependents under the statute. That figure will change in
Page 9 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
future years, depending upon the number of unmarried dependent children of employees who have retired
early because of accidental disability.
Section 9(2)(d)(ii)
Section 9(2)(d)(ii) can be accepted only if Town Meeting has accepted section 7(2)(a)(iii). It extends the
same benefits payable under section 7(2)(a)(iii), in both amount and frequency of payment, to dependent
children of employees who have died because of an injury sustained while working for the Town. The
payments are made to each dependent child's natural or legal guardian so long as the child remains
dependent (definition as cited above for Section 7(2)(a)(iii) applies). As is the case with
Section 7(2)(a)(iii), once Town Meeting accepts this statute, that acceptance cannot be revoked.
Under Section 9(2)(d)(ii), benefits are only payable from the date that Town Meeting accepts the statute;
they are not payable retroactively. The annual amount payable under this statute is identical to the annual
amount payable under Section7(2)(a)(iii). That amount will increase, on an annual basis, by the annual
percentage COLA adopted by the Massachusetts Legislature.
So far as can be determined, there are currently no dependent children qualified for payments under this
statute.
If Town Meeting accepts either or both of these statutes, all payments will be made from the Town's
Retirement Trust Fund, which is administered by the Retirement Board. Last year the Fund made
mandated payments approximating $8,000,000 to retired employees and currently has more then
$100,000,000 in assets. As required by law, the Town pays annual assessments into the Fund. Under that
law, the Fund must be fully funded by 2028; however, based on the annual payments being made by the
Town, the Fund is projected to be fully funded by 2015. Accepting either or both of these statutes will
minimally affect the Town's annual assessment.
A majority of this Committee (6-3) supports acceptance of both sections. The minority expressed concern
that supplemental post-retirement employment benefits such as these, however small in amount or
seemingly worthy, should-as a matter of principle-not be granted unilaterally, but should be negotiated
as part of the collective bargaining process. The minority also expressed concern that pension add-ons,
such as the ones at issue here, require particularly careful scrutiny because they have the potential to
create greater liabilities for the Town in the future than maybe apparent today, and can also trigger long-
termpension obligations disproportionate to the period of service a Town employee has rendered.
Article 18• Accept Funds Requested Funding Committee
MGL Chapter 32B Source Recommendation
,
Section 18 None Approve (9-0)
(Medicare
Extension Plans)
Chapter 32B of the Massachusetts General Laws authorizes governmental entities accepting various of its
provisions to provide and implement different plans of insurance for employees and their dependents. The
plans can encompass retirees and their dependents.
Lexington has accepted a number of provisions of Chapter 32B and provides medical and other health
insurance plans to its employees and retirees. Among the plans Lexington has obtained and provides is, in
the statutory language, "optional medicare extension" coverage to its retirees who are eligible for
coverage under Medicare, the Federal Health Insurance for the Aged Act. The plan is also known as a
Medicare health-benefits supplement plan.
Currently, participation by retirees in Lexington's Medicare extension plan is optional. Acceptance of
Section 18 will require retirees who are eligible for Medicare coverage to transfer to the extension plan
Page 10 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
offered by the Town, provided that the benefits under the plan, coupled with Medicare parts A and B, are
of comparable actuarial value to the retiree's currently existing coverage provided by the Town.
As a practical matter, most of the Town's retirees have already enrolled in the Town's Medicare
extension plan. Acceptance of Section 18 will require that all retirees do so. There are at least 32, and
perhaps as many as 60, current retirees eligible for Medicare who have not enrolled in the Town's
extension plan.
Upon acceptance of the statute, each of the Town's retirees who is not already enrolled will be required to
provide the Town with the information necessary to effectuate his or her transfer to the Medicare
extension plan. The statute mandates that a retiree who does not submit the required information "shall no
longer be eligible for his existing health coverage."
The purpose and intent of this Article are to reduce the Town's costs in supplying health-care coverage to
its retirees and their dependents. Additionally, because all retirees will be enrolled in the same Medicare
extension plan provided by the Town, acceptance of Section 18 will result in the uniform treatment,
handling, and payment of health insurance claims and benefits.
If Section 18 is accepted, that Section requires the Town to pay any Medicare part B "delayed enrollment
penalty" which may be assessed by the Federal government on the retiree as a result of the retiree's
enrollment in Medicare part B at the time of his or her transfer into the Town's Medicare extension plan
(rather than when first eligible-typically at age 65). As indicated above, there maybe up to 60 persons
for whom that penalty would have to be paid.
The penalty is a 10% surcharge for each full 12-month period between the end of the period when the
retiree could have initially enrolled in Medicare part B and the end of the period when the retiree actually
enrolls. There is no upper limit on the surcharge. For example, if three full 12-month periods have passed,
the surcharge is 30%; if five, the surcharge is 50%; if 10, the surcharge is 100%; etc. Additionally, the
penalty applies for the entire time the individual is enrolled in part B.
In CY2007, the Medicare part B monthly premium is $93.50. A 10% surcharge would result in a monthly
penalty of $9.35, or $112.20 per year; a 30% surcharge, $28.05, or $336.60 per year; a 50% surcharge,
$46.75, or $561.00 per year; and a 100% surcharge, $93.50, or $1,122.00 per year. The exact amount the
Town would have to pay, year by year, in penalty surcharges has not yet been determined. It will depend
upon how many of the potential 60 retirees the Town can, by virtue of accepting the statute, require to
enroll in its Medicare extension plan; how many full 12-month periods for each of those retirees have
passed; how long each of them remains enrolled in the Town's extension plan; and how the base premium
changes in future years.
whatever the total amount is, it will offset what the Town projects as a savings from the acceptance of
Section 18 of about $1,200 per retiree per year for those with individual coverage; more for those with
family coverage.
Based on the CY2007 Medicare rates and surcharges, the above examples demonstrate that acceptance of
Section 18 will produce a net savings to the Town for each of the current retirees with individual coverage
who will be required to enroll in the Town's extension plan and for whom the surcharge is 100% or less.
For each of them, the annual penalty expense to the Town would be less than the projected $1,200 annual
savings. Any of those new enrollees with individual coverage for whom the surcharge is 110% or greater
would result in a net expense to the Town. (The percentage at which a savings changes to an expense
would be higher for those new enrollees with family coverage.) However, as the number of transitioned
retirees on the Town's extension plan decreases over time through attrition, the overall net savings to the
Town will increase because their penalty expense will be removed while all subsequent enrollees will
have j oined without any penalty.
Page 11 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Although at this point we do not know what the immediate financial effect of passing this Article would
be, the long-term projection is for savings to the Town.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports acceptance of M.G.L., Chapter 32B, Section 18.
Article 19: Accept Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
MGL Chapter 71 Source Recommendation
,
Section 37M Joint
None
Approve (9-0)
Facilities
Department)
Town Meeting has already voted affirmatively on the main action requested by this Article-"To see if
the Town will vote to accept Section 37M of Chapter 71 of the Massachusetts General Laws relating to
the consolidation of maintenance functions of the School Committee with those of the Town"-under
Article 7 at the first 2006 Special Town Meeting (STM #1) on November 29, 2006.1 However, because
the statute arguably requires that such acceptance take place at an annual town meeting, it is now deemed
prudent to revote and ratify that acceptance, and thereby to approve consolidation of the school and town
maintenance functions, at this year's Annual Town Meeting.2
Since 2006 STM #l, the Town Manager and School Superintendent have been engaged in negotiations on
the organizational structure of a joint facilities department with the expectation that any such department
will ultimately be funded in the Town budget as a shared expense. Although we understand that these
negotiations have been productive, they have not yet been completed as of the publication of this report,
they may not be concluded before the adjournment of the Annual Town Meeting, and the operating
budget which has been presented to Town Meeting does not contemplate a consolidated facilities
department.
If the negotiations conclude favorably this spring, and the School Committee votes to approve the
consolidation, it should be feasible to have a joint facilities department up and running during FY 2008.
The Town Manager believes that there will be adequate latitude under the statute and under the currently
proposed budget to a) appoint a Joint Facilities Director, and b) allow that Director to take control of a
combined facilities maintenance budget, even though its components will have been appropriated
separately for the municipality and schools.
As we noted in our report to 2006 STM # 1: "until an organizational structure and budget [for a combined
school and town maintenance department] are agreed upon, we cannot evaluate the potential savings or
costs of this consolidation." However, it is our hope and expectation that the negotiations currently
1 In our report to 2006 STM #l, we explained that the proposed consolidation would be taking place as a two-step
process, with acceptance of the statute occurring at the Special Town Meeting and the actual vote to consolidate
taking place at an annual town meeting, likely the 2007 Annual Town Meeting if by that time a plan of consolidation
had been negotiated between the School Department and the Town.
~ The full text of G.L, c. 71, § 37M is as follows: "(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter forty-one or any
other special or general law to the contrary, any city or town which accepts the provisions of this section may
consolidate administrative functions, including but not limited to financial, personnel, and maintenance functions, of
the school committee with those of the city or town; provided, however, that such consolidation may occur only
upon a majority vote of both the school committee and in a city, the city council with approval of the mayor required
by law or in a town, the annual town meeting or in a town with no town meeting, the town council. (b)
Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, a decision to consolidate functions pursuant to paragraph
(a) of this section may be revoked by a majority vote of either the school committee of the city or town, or the city
or town, or both as such vote is described in said paragraph (a)."
Page 12 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
underway will create an opportunity for the Town to develop amore-consistent facilities maintenance
program, to better achieve and maintain the expertise and skill sets needed, to realize savings through
operating efficiencies and economies of scale, and to protect school maintenance funds against the
pressures of other school operating needs.
Some members of this Committee question whether it is appropriate under the statute for Town Meeting
to vote to approve the consolidation of the school and municipal facilities departments before a specific
consolidation plan has been presented. Nevertheless, in the interest of keeping the process moving along
expeditiously, the Committee unanimously (9-0) supports approval of this article with the understanding
that if the School Committee were for any reason to vote to approve a consolidation plan which does not
meet with the approval of the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen (an exceedingly unlikely
event), the Town Manager and the Board of Selectmen would have no obligation to implement that plan
during FY 2008 and Town Meeting could, in any event, revoke its approval of consolidation, under the
terms of the statute, at the next annual town meeting.
ArtlCle ZZ:
Appropriate Funds Re uested
q Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
FYZUU$ EnterprlSe $6,078,058 Water EF Approve Requested
FUridS BUdgetS EF + $7,346,035 Amounts (9-0)
Wastewater EF +
$1,627,705
Recreation EF
FUNDS REQUESTED:
Enterprise Fund FY2006
Actual FY2007
Appropriated FY2008
Requested
1. Water
Personal Services $570 997
> $580 799 $581656
>
Expenses $817,887 $716,835 $569,800
Debt Service $213 150
> $398 671 $490 833
>
MWRA Assessment $3 806 069
> $4 032 517 $4 435 769
>
Total Water Enterprise Fund $5 408102 $5 728 822 $6 078 058
2. Wastewater
Personal Services $227 985
> $241 161 $245 291
>
Expenses $518,448 $478,972 $430,272
Debt Service $275 950
> $351643 $473 256
>
MWRA Assessment $5 257126
> $5 633 833 $6197 216
>
Total Wastewater Enterprise Fund $6 279 508 $6 705 609 $7 346 035
Page 13 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
3. Recreation
Personal Services $496 584
> $558 526 $563120
>
Expenses $885,329 $899,978 $960,668
Debt Service $100 000
> $168 000 $103 917
>
Total Recreation Enterprise Fund $1481913 $1626 504 $1627 705
The Town of Lexington has maintained Water, Wastewater (Sewer), and Recreation Enterprise Funds
since shortly after legislation authorizing the creation of such funds, G.L. c. 44, § 53F1/2, was enacted by
the State Legislature in 1986. The Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds do not rely on tax-levy
revenues, but cover their complete operating and capital needs with user charges and fees. The Recreation
Enterprise Fund covers its complete operating costs with user charges and fees and also contributes to the
debt service on certain recreation capital projects.
What is an Enterprise Fund?
As explained by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue (DOR), "an enterprise fund establishes a
separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for municipal services for which a fee is charged
in exchange for good or services. Under enterprise accounting, the revenues and expenditures of the
service are segregated into a separate fund with its own financial statements, rather than commingled with
the revenues and expenses of all other governmental activities. Financial transactions are reported using
standards similar to private sector accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are
recognized when incurred, under a full accrual basis of accounting [unlike the modified cash basis of
accounting typically used for municipal accounting]. An enterprise fund provides management and
taxpayers with information to: [m]easure performance, [a]nalyze the impact of financial decisions; [and]
[d]etermine the cost of providing a service." [DOR Enterprise Funds Manual (June, 2002)]
Establishing the Enterprise Fund Budd
At the Annual Town Meeting each year, Town Meeting approves a budget for each of the enterprise funds
for the following fiscal year. Later in the year (generally in the late summer or early fall in the case of the
Water and Wastewater Enterprise funds), user charges are set that are designed, based on projections of
usage for the fiscal year, to be sufficient to cover the appropriations made by Town Meeting. Depending
on the accuracy of the usage projections, the actual revenue realized by the enterprise during the year may
exceed or fall short of the appropriated amount. Any operating surplus must be retained in reserve in the
enterprise fund, and the funds accumulated in that reserve (sometimes referred to as "retained earnings")
maybe applied only to meet the capital needs of the enterprise or to reduce user charges. If an enterprise
fund sustains an operating loss (after applying any accumulated reserves in the fund), such loss must be
made up in the succeeding fiscal year's appropriation.
Since FY2007, the Annual Town Meeting Warrant has contained a separate Article for the appropriation
of the enterprise fund operating budgets. Previously, enterprise fund operating costs-both the direct
expenses and indirect charges from other Town departments-were appropriated as part of the vote on the
municipal operating budget. The various enterprise-fund appropriations were scattered among related line
items in the operating-budget motion, making it difficult to understand and keep track of the complete
costs and operations of each of the various enterprise funds.
The new presentation makes it easier to understand the operating budgets of the enterprise funds.
However, the indirect costs that are charged to these enterprise funds are still appropriated in Article 21 as
part of the municipal operating budget. For the complete operating costs of the enterprise funds, including
indirect costs, see the Brown Book, pages V-29 (Water), V-33 (Wastewater) and VIII-9 (Recreation).
Appropriations for the capital needs of the enterprises continue to be addressed, as they have in the past,
Page 14 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
in separate capital warrant articles. (See Article 29-Recreation Capital Projects, Article 32-Water
Distribution Improvements, and Article 33-Sewer Improvements.)
WaterlWastewater Fund Issues
The largest component of the Water and Wastewater Enterprise-Funds budgets is made up of the charges
imposed by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) for water and wastewater disposal.
These are assessments over which the Town has no control. The requested appropriation is based on the
MWRA's preliminary estimate of its anticipated assessments for Lexington for FY2008, of about $4.4
million for water and $6.2 million for wastewater. Generally, the final assessments, which are rendered
later in the spring or early summer, are lower than the preliminary assessments, and the final budget used
to set rates for FY2008 will be adjusted to reflect the final, actual costs.
The Water and Wastewater Fund budgets include direct costs, which are primarily for the wages and
salaries of the employees in the DPW's Water and Sewer Divisions, the expenses of the water and sewer
maintenance activities and equipment, and debt service on prior borrowings for water and sewer
enterprise capital improvements.
The budgets also include indirect costs, which are for services provided to the enterprise funds by
departments accounted for in the General Fund, such as the Engineering Department and the Revenue
Department, for insurance costs (health and liability), retirement funding, utilities, and support services
such as Comptroller, Management-Information Systems (MIS), and the Revenue Department. Last fall,
following up on a recommendation made in the final report of the Water and Sewer Rate Study
Committee in 2005, the Town staff conducted an analysis of the basis for the indirect charges, and
concluded that the level of indirect expenses that was being charged to the Water and Wastewater
Enterprise Funds was significantly higher than could be justified. To address this issue without causing
undue disruption to the Town Budget, the Town Manager recommended a gradual phase-down of the
indirect expenses charged to the water and wastewater funds to the levels supported by his analysis over a
period of five years. Consistent with this multi-year phase-down plan, the recommended budget for
FY2008 contemplates modest reductions in the levels of indirect expenses charged to the Water and
Wastewater Funds, as set forth on pages V-29 and V-33 of the Brown Book.
For a number of years, the budgets for the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds included charges, which
were recovered in the water and sewer rates, for payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTS)-$500,000 for the
Water Enterprise Fund and $250,000 for the Sewer Enterprise Fund. These were amounts that Town
Meeting had authorized to be paid from the Enterprise Funds to the General Fund for unspecified Town
services, in addition to the identified indirect costs, as though the Enterprise Funds were separate entities
subject to taxation. Because of uncertainties about the appropriateness and validity of these charges, and
at the recommendation of the Water and Sewer Rate Study Committee, the Board of Selectmen began
phasing out these charges last year at the rate of 25% per year. The PILOT charges in the FY2008 budget,
which are included in the Expenses line item for "contractual services," are $250,000 for the Water
Enterprise Fund and $125,000 for the Sewer Enterprise Fund. These charges represent a 50% reduction
from the amounts charged prior to FY2007.
Finally, the Town Manager and staff have given consideration over the past year to the levels of reserves
that are appropriate to maintain in the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Funds. In the rate-setting process
that occurred last fall, rates were set at the Town Manager's recommendation that were designed to
reduce the reserves in the Water Enterprise Fund, which then stood at approximately $2,000,000, by
$500,000; and to increase the reserves in the Wastewater Enterprise Fund, which then stood at
approximately $575,000, by $212,000. Following the special audit of water and wastewater fund reserves
which we discussed in last year's report, it would appear that significant improvements have been made
to the accuracy of the Town's water and sewer billing process and systems, and consequently its ability to
forecast usage and revenue. This, in turn, should lead to greater stability of the reserves. However, we
will continue to monitor the reserve levels.
Page 15 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Recreation Fund Issues
This budget represents a decrease of $85,199 (-4.58%) from last year, with budget increases for wages
and management contract offset by two non-program related expense reductions; $15,000 less for
monitoring of Lincoln Park methane, and a decrease of $164,083 in debt service. Over half (57%) of the
revenue for the Recreation Enterprise Fund operating budget, $1,015,705, comes from user fees for fields
and registration fees for programs. All programs offered by the Recreation Department are designed to be
revenue neutral with charges to users matching the program's operating costs. The other main source of
revenue, $750,000, is from golf course fees. Golf course expenses include amanagement-contract base
fee of $362,250 as well as an additional payment for course management of 5% of collected course fees.
Other direct operating costs to the Enterprise Fund include wages and salaries totaling $563,120 for
5 full-time staff and 175+/- seasonal staff, as well as charges for utilities and supplies costs.
In FY2008, indirect, shared, and capital charges against the Recreation Enterprise Fund will total
$381,917. Under Article 21 (Operating Budget), $100,000 will be used for indirect costs to cover DPW
field maintenance, and $48,000 will be used for employee benefits. Under Article 22 (Enterprise Funds
Budgets), $100,000 of the Enterprise-Fund revenue will be used to help fund the Lincoln Field debt
service and $3,917 for other debt service. Under Article 29 (Recreation Capital Projects), $130,000 will
be appropriated for renovations to the Valley Road Tennis Courts.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee unanimously (9-0) approves the adoption of the Water, Wastewater, and Recreation
Enterprise Funds budgets, as requested.
Article 23: Petition
General Court to Funds Re uested
q Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
Increase Income None Pending
Limits for Property
Tax Deferrals
(Citizens' Petition)
Back rg ound
Over the last several years, Town Meeting has taken a number of steps to enhance the property-tax relief
available to senior citizens and other residents, for the most part maximizing the options that the Town is
allowed to adopt under existing State law. The principle forms of relief now available to Lexington
homeowners are:
a tax deferral program, under which homeowners age 65 or over with a household income of not
more than $40,000 may defer any or all of their property tax, up to half the value of their house,
at an interest rate equal to the Town's cost of funds (4.77% for FY 2007), until the house is sold
or transferred, G.L, c. 59, § 5, cl. 41 A ("the 41 A Program");
a tax exemption program, under which homeowners age 65 or over with limited income and
limited assets other than the value of their home may deduct $1,000 from their annual property
tax, G.L, c. 59, § 5, cl. 41C ("the 41C Program");
a Community Preservation Act surcharge exemption program, under which low-to-moderate
income homeowners age 60 or over, and low-income homeowners under age 60, may obtain a
100% exemption from the CPA surcharge on their property tax;
a Senior Service program under which low-income seniors may perform volunteer work for the
Town in exchange for a reduction of up to $850 in their property tax; and
Page 16 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
an exclusively State-run program called the "Circuit Breaker" program under which low- and
moderate-income homeowners age 65 and over, whose homes have an assessed valuation not
greater than a specified ceiling ($684,000 for tax year 2006) may obtain a tax credit on their
State tax returns (up to $870 for tax year 2006) for the amount that their property tax, plus half
their annual water and sewer bill, exceeds 10% of their annual income, G.L, c. 62, § 6(k).
The 41A Deferral Proms
The 41 A deferral program has not been widely used because many senior citizens who have paid off their
mortgages have been reluctant to place a new lien on their home and accumulate debt, or to reduce the
value of an asset that can be passed onto their heirs. Nevertheless, this program is an important tool in the
tax-relief box because it offers immediate and substantial property tax relief to cash-strapped seniors,
permitting those who qualify to defer any part or all of their property tax at an interest rate that is now
quite reasonable until the property is ultimately disposed of.
At the same time, the 41 A deferral program is an attractive form of tax relief from the Town's point of
view because it is essentially revenue-neutral. While a significant increase in the number of participants in
any particular year could potentially create ashort-term cash flow problem, the Town is essentially
making awell-secured loan. The Town will eventually be repaid all the funds that are deferred with
interest, and over time an equilibrium should be reached under which as many deferral agreements are
repaid as are entered into.
The Proposed Home Rule Petition
This Citizen Article proposes that a Home Rule Petition be requested from the State legislature that would
raise the income limits, currently set at a maximum of $40,000 per household, and lower the age limit,
currently set at a minimum of 65 years of age, for property tax deferrals in the Town of Lexington under
the 41A Program. The Article does not specify a proposed upper income limit or lower age limit, nor does
it specify any mechanism by which the Town would have the ability to adjust the deferral eligibility limits
from time to time. The precise form of the motion that will be made under this Article is not yet known
for certain.
Because the State legislature has not changed the $40,000 maximum household income threshold for the
41A deferral program since it was adopted by the Town of Lexington in the early 1990's, this Committee
believes that obtaining the authority to raise that threshold makes a good deal of sense. We are less certain
about the wisdom of lowering the age of eligibility from the current 65 generally, but see no harm in
obtaining authority to permit deferral by younger persons in cases of disability or other hardship.
The Committee, therefore, would support a Home Rule Petition that gives the Town of Lexington the
power to set higher income thresholds for 41 A deferrals by vote of its Town Meeting from time to time as
it sees fit, or to lower the age of eligibility in cases of disability or hardship. Because no specific motion
has yet been presented, the Committee's recommendation on this Article remains pending.
Article 24: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
Senior Service $40,000 GF X40,000 (9-0)
Program
This Article proposes an appropriation of $40,000 for the Senior Service Program, now completing its
first year. The requested amount is believed to be sufficient to permit all eligible applicants to take
advantage of the program under the current guidelines adopted by the Board of Selectmen.
Last spring, Town Meeting voted to rescind its acceptance of the State-wide senior property tax work-off
program under Chapter 59, §SK of the General Laws, and to substitute in its place a new, locally
Page 17 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
controlled Senior Service Program. The purpose of replacing the pre-existing program was to free the
Town of the restrictions imposed by the State statute on age, wage rate, and credit amount, and in
particular to give the Town the flexibility to:
Allow participation by persons under age 60, such as the disabled and handicapped, who might be
able to benefit from the program,
Pay a wage higher than the minimum wage, and
Allow more than $750 to be credited against a participant's property tax bill
The new program was to be funded by direct appropriation from the tax levy rather than through
the Town's overlay account. The original funding amount was established at a level only slightly
higher than the amount that had been expended from the overlay account during the three
preceding fiscal years (ranging from $20,034 in FY2004 to $23,706 in FY2006).
At the time Town Meeting approved and funded this new program, the detailed policies governing the
program had not yet been finalized. Subsequently, the Board of Selectmen adopted guidelines that
increased eligibility and enhanced benefits in the following respects, compared with the State program:
Income eligibility was set at $46,300 for single taxpayers or $52,950 for a couple (versus $36,750
if single, $42,000 if married under the state program)
Hourly rate was set at $8.50 (versus minimum wage under the State program, which was then
$6.75 and scheduled to increase to $7.50 on January 1, 2007 and $8.00 on January 1, 2008)
Maximum credit was set at $850 (versus $750 under the State program)
On the other hand, eligibility under the new program was restricted, in comparison with the State
program, by limiting participation to one enrollee per taxable household in the interests of equity.
Although the Board of Selectmen has the ability to expand eligibility to persons under age 60 who are
disabled or handicapped, it has not yet done so.
When these guidelines were set, it was believed that the $25,000 originally appropriated by Town
Meeting would be adequate to fund the program. In fact, applications to the program (which were
accepted between June 15 and September 15, 2006) exceeded expectations. A total of 43 eligible
applicants applied, which compares with prior participation of 31 in FY2004 and 37 in each of FY2005
and FY2006.
The combination of higher-than-expected participation and the enhancement of benefits meant that if all
eligible applicants were admitted to the program and worked the full number of hours (100) necessary to
earn the maximum tax credit of $850, a total of $36,450 would be required to fully fund the program. To
make it possible to allow all applicants to participate, a supplemental appropriation of $11,000 was
requested and approved at last fall's Special Town Meeting, bringing the total appropriation for this
program in FY 2007 to $36,000.
This year's requested appropriation of $40,000 would be sufficient to accommodate everyone who
participated in FY2007, and would also allow some flexibility to admit additional applicants to the
program. If all of the eligible participants do not in fact earn the maximum possible credit, then any
surplus that remains in the program will be carried over as a "continuing balance" for potential use in the
following fiscal year.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the recommended amount.
Page 18 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Article 25: Continue Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
and Approve Source Recommendation
Departmental See table below RF Approve as Requested
Revolving Funds (9-0)
Program or Purpose Authorized Departmental Receipts FY2008
Representative or Authorization
Board to Spend
DPW Burial Containers Public Works Director Sale of Grave Boxes and Burial $35,000
Vaults
DPW Compost Operations Public Works Director Sale of compost and loam, yard $210,034
waste p ermits
LexMedia Operations Board of Selectmen and License fees from cable TV $400,000
Town Manager providers
Trees Board of Selectmen Gifts and fees $20,000
Minuteman Household Public Works Director Fees paid by consortium towns $175,000
Hazardous Waste Program
Health Programs Health Director Medicare reimbursements $7,000
Council on Aging Programs Social Services Director Program fees and gifts $100,000
Departmental revolving funds are an important part of the Town's overall finance structure. Ordinarily,
revenue received by any municipal department must be deposited in the General Fund, and cannot be
expended for any purpose without further appropriation by Town Meeting. The revolving fund is a form
of "special fund" that allows Town Meeting to dedicate in advance a specific source of anticipated
revenue from fees and charges to pay, on an ongoing basis and without the need for further appropriation,
expenses for rendering the services for which those fees and charges are collected.
Revolving funds managed by municipal departments are generally governed by G.L. c. 44, § 53E112.
(There are also a number of revolving funds managed by the School Department, such as the School
Lunch Fund, which are governed by other statutes and are not within the control of Town Meeting.)
Under Section 53E112, a municipal revolving fund can be established only by vote of Town Meeting.
That authorization must be renewed prior to each succeeding fiscal year. The authorization must specify:
• the purpose(s) for which monies deposited in the fund may be used;
• the source(s) of funds to be deposited in the fund;
the board, department or officer authorized to expend monies from the fund; and
a limit on the total amount that maybe expended from the fund in the ensuing fiscal year.
Expenditures may not be made, nor liabilities incurred, in excess of the balance of the fund.
If a revolving fund is reauthorized, any balance in the fund maybe carried over to the next fiscal year. If a
revolving fund is not reauthorized, or if the purposes for which the money in the fund may be spent are
changed, the balance in the fund reverts to the General Fund at the end of the fiscal year unless Town
Meeting votes to transfer the funds to another duly established revolving fund.
Four municipal revolving funds are proposed to be reauthorized this year: the DPW Burial Containers
Fund and the DPW Compost Operations Fund (which were formerly combined into a single fund); the
LexMedia Operations (formerly CATV Operations) Fund; and the Trees (formerly Tree Planting) Fund.
The spending limit proposed for each of the funds is based on a reasonable estimate of the fees and
charges likely to be received, as well as of the expenditures likely to be required. The final fund balances
Page 19 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
that will carry over from FY2007 to FY2008 won't be known until the end of the fiscal year. As of
December 31, 2006, the fund balances were as follows:
DPW Burial Containers/Compost Operations $239,087
LexMedia Operations $467,523
Trees Fund $6,559
In addition, Town Meeting will be asked to approve the creation of three new departmental revolving
funds: the Minuteman Household Hazardous Waste Program Fund, the Health Programs Fund, and the
Council on Aging Programs Fund. The Town Manager has recommended the establishment of these
additional revolving funds so that the relevant departments can better and more transparently manage and
account for the fees, charges and other revenues they collect or receive, some of which were previously
accounted for in special revenue funds off budget, and so the unexpended balances of funds collected can
be carried over from year to year.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the reauthorization of each of the existing revolving funds,
and the creation of the three proposed new revolving funds on the terms specified.
Article 26:
Appropriate the Funds Re uested
q Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
FY2008 $1,466,199 CPA X1,264,599 (see detail)
COmmunlty +$90,000 (pending)
Preservation
Committee
Operating Budget
and for CPA
Projects
In the Introduction we made some general comments about this first full year of planning CPA
expenditures. While we do not repeat those comments in full here, we do reiterate our disappointment
with the process whereby already identified projects eligible for CPA funding are being proposed by the
Town, instead, for non-CPA funding in the FY2008 budget. While we would have preferred those
projects be included under this Article, we are supporting them elsewhere because of the urgency cited for
those projects and because the CPC's current process did not allow for their inclusion under this Article.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(a) Center Playfields Drainage $40 000 CPA $40 000 9-0
( )
Im rovement Stud
P Y
"This engineering study will assess the entire Center Playfields site, develop options for drainage
mitigation, and develop plans and specifications for the implementation of the preferred option." [Brown
Book, Page XI-16] .
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Page 20 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount Funding
' Committee Recommends
Requested our'ce
S
(b) Historical Burial Ground $367 000 CPA $367 000 9-0
~ ~
Rehabilitation
"...to hire a qualified conservator to restore the grave markers in the Town's historic burying grounds
[Ye Olde Burial Ground (Colonial Cemetery) & Munroe Cemetery]." [Brown Book, Page XI-14].
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(c) Fire Monitoring Equipment $18,120 CPA $18,120 (9-0)
"...to comply with the Fire Chef's directive to update fire monitoring equipment at the three historic
houses [Buckman, Munroe Tavern, &Hancock-Clarke House]...and will be coordinated with the
$142,000 of wireless alarm installation in municipal buildings [under Article 31(b)] ..." [Brown Book,
Page XI-16] .
Note: It was here, instead, that we would have wanted to see the equipment for what we understand are
the 7CPA-eligible locations covered under Article 31(b). The equipment for those 7 locations is
estimated to cost $38,500.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(d) Buckman Tavern Boiler $10,685 CPA $10,685 (9-0)
"...installation of a new boiler at the Buckman Tavern, which is a Town-owned property leased to the
Historical Society, and the removal and replacement of an underground oil storage tank at the Tavern.
The total project cost is $12,735, of which $2,050 will come from a contribution from the Arlex Oil
Company." [Brown Book, Page XI-16].
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(e) Comprehensive Cultural $90 000 CPA Pendin
g
Resources Survey
"...for the correction and update of the Town's inventory of historic properties and neighborhoods in
Lexington, which is used for the administration of the Demolition Delay Bylaw... The proposed workplan
calls for the use of the services of an historic preservation consultant to review, update and complete new
research on approximately 2,000 properties in Lexington." [Brown Book, Page XI-16].
While a majority of this Committee supports the project (with the condition that all the products of this
effort shall also be delivered to the Town in an electronic format suitable both for efficient future updates
and posting for access via the Internet), any formal recommendation is pending until we have reviewed
the language of the Demolition Delay Bylaw. We wish to better understand how decisions are made with
regard to having a property included in the inventory as we realize that one of the consequences of
conducting this study is the potential to subject additional properties to the Demolition Delay Bylaw.
Page 21 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Because of this issue and our appreciation that discussion at Town Meeting under Article 15 (Amend
Demolition Bylaw) is expected to provide more information on it, we have requested that this subelement
of Article 26 be separated and brought up after Town Meeting has considered Article 15. (It is our
understanding that Town Meeting will be asked to approve this reordering.)
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(~ Greeley Village Window $228 404 CPA $228 404 9-0
( )
Re lacement
P
"...for replacement windows at the Greeley Village complex...with one hundred units that was first
occupied in 1968...The projected cost of the total [project] is $248,404...the [Lexington Housing
Authority] will pay the remaining $20,000 needed to complete the project." [Brown Book, Page XI-13].
we understand that this request is intended to effect the replacement of all 350 windows in the complex.
In addition, the ability to fund this project through State or Federal funding is improbable.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(g) East Lexington Branch $43 000 CPA $43 000 9-0
( )
Libra Stud
ry Y
"...to conduct a complete analysis of the [East Lexington Branch Library, a historically significant
Town-owned property] that includes a structural study but also considers preservation, access and current
code compliance." [Brown Book, Page XI-12].
It was significant to this Committee that the study wi11 not be limited just to the building for its current
use as a branch library, but rather take the broader perspective that this is a Town asset and the Town
should know what needs to be done to the building to preserve its structure, systems, and to achieve
compliance with current building codes and other regulations (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act
[ADA]).
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(h) Cary Hall Improvements $147,130 CPA $77,130 (9-0)
"... to restore and rehabilitate historic Cary Hall as a center for public presentation and performance."
[Brown Book, Page XI-13].
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(h)(i) Feasibility Study $10,000 CPA $10,000 (9-0)
"... to determine whether the prof ect is feasible."
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this element of the project.
Page 22 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5ou~ce Committee Recommends
(h)(ii) Blackout Curtains $8,000 CPA $8,000 (9-0)
"...immediate installation of blackout curtains"
These curtains would be of immediate use, whether or not the rest of the contemplated improvements are
done, and the CPC has confirmed that the curtain installation could be independent of, and unaffected by,
the rest of the contemplated improvements.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this element of the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5ou~ce Committee Recommends
(h)(iii) Stage Extensions & $59130 CPA $59130 9-0
( )
Li htin
g g
"...immediate installation of stage extensions, lighting and dimming capabilities over the extensions."
These extensions, and the lighting for them, would be of immediate use, whether or not the rest of the
contemplated improvements are done, and the CPC has confirmed that the extensions and their lighting
could be independent of, and unaffected by, the rest of the contemplated improvements.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this element of the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5ou~ce Committee Recommends
(h)(iv) Architectural Concept $70 000 CPA $0 9-0
( )
and Performance Studies
"...if [the project] is [deemed] feasible [by the initial study([see (i) above)], the...$70,000 will be used
for architectural concept and performance studies."
We do not believe it is prudent, or needed, to approve these second-step studies until the report on the
initial feasibility study-which is to provide a business plan for the use of an upgraded hall-has been
presented to Town Meeting. We feel that it should be Town Meeting, not just the CPC or the Board of
Selectmen, who should formally endorse moving forward, past the initial feasibility study, on something
that would so significantly affect a major Town asset which already has high demands upon its use in its
current condition.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) does not support at this time this element of the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(i) Unifying Tourism Signage $18,360 CPA $18,360 (9-0)
"...An integrated program of signage throughout the Town that identifies its historic resources and raises
public awareness of them will promote the long-term protection and preservation of those resources."
[Brown Book, Page XI-13].
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Page 23 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(j) Douglas House $300,000 CPA $300,000 (8-1)
"...The former Lexington Press building on Oakland Street will be rehabilitated into studio-type rental
apartment units for brain-injured adults by Supportive Living, Inc. (SLI), anon-profit corporation that
operates similar facilities in Woburn and North Reading. The rehabilitation of the historic building at 7
Oakland Street will result in the creation of 15 units of affordable housing. The $300,000 CPA funding
request, when added to the $5.9 million raised by SLI from other public and private sources, will close the
funding gap and enable SLI to commence construction in May of this year." [Brown Book, Page XI-13].
A majority of this Committee still feels the use of CPA funding on any non-Town-owned asset should be
held to a higher standard than for aTown-owned asset . (Please see the discussion, at length, in our
"Report To The 2006 Special Town Meeting #l, released November 28, 2006, under Article 4(ii)(a)-
which amplified on our concern as reported to the 2005 Town Meeting in regard to adoption of the CPA.)
A different majority of this Committee finds, however, that the Douglas House project warrants the use of
CPA funds under any standard because of what it brings to our community-the 15 units of affordable
housing, two of which will give preference to Lexington residents, and all 15 of which also qualify
toward the 10% threshold in Chapter 40B, the State's Affordable Housing Zoning Law. Affordable
housing is one of the primary purposes of the CPA and at $20,000/unit, this project presents the Town
with a relative bargain. Furthermore, one of the conditions of the CPA funding will be that if the property
should ever cease to provide affordable units under Chapter 40B, the $300,000 must be returned to the
Town's CPA account.
Several on our Committee were sensitive to the fact that if this CPA funding-which is, in part, directly
from the property taxes paid by our community-were approved, we would be facilitating the conversion
of a property that currently pays property taxes as anon-conforming industrial-coded property to one, at
best from atax-revenue basis, that would be taxed at the residential rate and appraised using the income
model (rather than the market value model); and, at worst, as atax-exempt use. SLI has formally advised
the Town that because of the corporate structure for this project, they are not eligible to apply for tax-
exempt status, and they have provided a pro forma operating statement.
By a majority (8-1), this Committee supports the project.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(k) West Lexington Greenway $125 000 CPA $125 000 9-0
( )
Corridor
"...for the hiring of an engineering firm to create a master plan for the construction of a pedestrian and
bicycle accessible trail system connecting Lexington's conservation lands west of Route 128/I-95. The
completed master plan will enable the applicants to apply for state and federal funding for construction
documents and the actual construction of the greenway." [Brown Book, Page XI-13].
We believe this initial planning and design effort will be quite valuable even though we recognize there is
no assurance that State and Federal funding will be available to fully, or even mostly, fund the subsequent
stages of this multi-year project.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the project.
Page 24 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(1) Muzzey Condominium $53 500 CPA $11900 9-0
( )
Architectural Stud
y
"...comprehensive building study... [of a]70-unit building [providing] affordable homes to qualified
buyers...including 12 rental units owned by LexHAB...the Town also owns the portion of Muzzey that is
home to Lexington's Senior Center." [Brown Book, Page XI-13]. (The total cost of the study is estimated
at $59,500 and the Muzzey Condominium Association is proposing to contribute $6,000; hence the
request for $53,500 of CPA funds.)
Notwithstanding claims about the condition of the building at the time it was sold to a private developer,
it is our understanding that the sale was "as is" and without any warranties. Further, as a condominium, it
has always been clear, on the record, that any purchaser has assumed responsibilities without any further
obligations of the Town. We further note that although without any apparent legal obligation to do so, the
Town-through the Board of Selectmen-provided relief on the sale-price caps on the units by permitting
them to be increased by 5%/year (compounded) rather than the previously allowed 4%/year
(compounded) that was a formal requirement when the Town sold the building. The sale-price caps of
many of the units have now increased to well over $200K. Given the real estate market, it seems likely
that when units are sold, the sales prices will continue to be close to or at the capped amounts. Thus, the
maximum allowable incomes of future buyers, which are calculated as a percentage of selling price, could
range between $79,000 and $185,000 with a median of about $130,000 (for two-person households). Note
that the Area Median Income (AMI) in 2006 for two-person households is $84,100; 120% AMI is
$100,920.
However, the sale-price cap relief does not provide a mechanism for funding repairs for those unit owners
who cannot afford to leverage their increased equity. The only options for such owners are either to not
do the repairs or to sell. Many of the unit owners who bought their units years ago likely have very little
means to support these repairs, while those who have purchased their units more recently may have
incomes adequate to support the costs of repairs. However, this Article does not make allowances for
means testing of the recipients of this subsidy by the Town for the study.
We see it as unwarranted that the Town should provide blanket support for all unit owners. Without
means testing, we can only support funding the study for the 20% ownership share represented by the
Town-related activities (i.e., 7.09% for the LexHAB units; 12.91 % for the Senior Center). (To the extent
the Condominium Association were to have a reasonable replacement reserve, we would see
supplemental funding to be unwarranted.)
We are further concerned that, in light of the financial constraints of some of their unit owners, the
Condominium Association has no business plan for how they could carry out the extensive repairs and
restorations the proposed study is likely to document.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports only the proportionate funding and then only under the
conditions that: (a) the full study (estimated to cost $59,500) is undertaken, (b) the CPA funding could
only be used to fund the Town-related owners' liability of an assessment on all owners to accomplish the
study (thereby precluding any double charging of the Town-related owners), and (c) the assessment on the
Town-related owners does not exceed 20% of the total assessment.
Page 25 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(m) Administration $25,000 CPA $25,000 (9-0)
"...This amount will be spend on mailings, notice publication, legal fees, and other miscellaneous
expenses." [CPC Handout for Annual Town Meeting 2007, March 14, 2007]
We understand that additional funds may also be sought to provide part-time personnel to provide
administrative support to the CPC.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the currently requested funding and, while subject to our
review of reasonableness, would also support funding part-time personnel.
ArtlCle Z~: Land Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Purchase Off Source Recommendation
LOWeII Street N/A CPA Indefinitely Postpone
(9-0)
It is our understanding that it will be proposed to move for Indefinite Postponement of this Article as the
discussions with the land owner have not reached an agreement.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports Indefinite Postponement.
ArtlCle Zg: Land Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Purchase Off Source Recommendation
Adams Street N/A CPA Indefinitely Postpone
(9-0)
It is our understanding that it will be proposed to move for Indefinite Postponement of this Article as the
discussions with the land owner have not reached an agreement.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports Indefinite Postponement.
ArtlCle 29: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
Recreation Capital $265,000
EF $265,000 (9-0)
Prod ects
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(a) Center Basketball Court $g5 000 GF $85 000 9-0
( )
Reconstruction
"...to engineer and reconstruct the double basketball court at the Center Recreation Complex." [Brown
Book, Page XI-15]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports that funding.
Page 26 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(b) Valley Road Tennis Court ~ 130 000 EF $130 000 9-0
( )
Im rovements
p
"...to fund the engineering and reconstruction of the [Valley Road] courts...The project will also include
the replacement of the existing perimeter fencing around the two courts and the purchase and installation
of site amenities." [Brown Book, Page XI-11 ]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports that funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(c) Park Improvements- $50 000 GF $50 000 9-0
( )
Athletic Fields
"...will address the athletic field space at the Bowman School...This site has not been significantly
upgraded in the last 15 years and is now a safety concern." [Brown Book, Page XI-15]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports that funding.
ArtlCle 3~:
Appropriate for Funds Re uested
q Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
Battle Green GF Pending
Flagpole
Maintenance
(Citizens' Petition)
This Committee is awaiting further information on the language in the Motion as we understand the
restoration of the flagpole will be accomplished using already appropriated 2007 maintenance funding.
ArtlCle 31: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
1VIUnlClpal Capital $3,236,200 GF X3,236,200 (see detail)
Projects and
Equipment
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
a Lincoln Field Methane
O $400,000 plus, if required by the
Mitigation $400 000 GF State an estimated additional
'
$60,000 (9-0)
"The 2006 annual town meeting authorized the expenditure of $60,000 to engage an engineering firm to
design methane mitigation measures at Lincoln Field. The work of the firm has been completed and its
proposed design-the construction of a subsurface slurry wall along the southern side of Lincoln Street-
Page 27 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
has been submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for review and
approval. The $400,000 is an estimate subject to revision based on the response of the DEP to the
proposed design." [Brown Book, Page XI-5]
We understand that the DEP's response stipulates construction of an additional length of slurry wall
with an estimated cost increase of about 15% (i.e., about $60,000).
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the funding the Town is required to spend to meet the design
approved by the State so the Town can meet its obligations (and, hopefully, avoid any State-imposed
penalties).
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(b) Installation of Wireless
Fire Alarm Boxes in Municipal $142,000 GF $142,000 (9-0)
Buildings
"...The proposed project will update and replace the municipal fire alarm master boxes on all municipal
and school buildings [at 22 locations]" [Brown Book, Page XI-6]
It's our understanding that 7 of those locations (Town Office Building, Cary Memorial Hall, School
Administration Building ["White House"], Cary Memorial Library, East Lexington Library, East
Lexington Fire Station, Munroe Center for the Arts) would be eligible for CPA funding, but were not
submitted to the CPC for review. It's estimated the cost for those 7 would be about $38,500.
As noted in the Introduction to this report, we are disappointed these municipal projects weren't
considered for CPA funding, but based on Lexington Fire Chief William Middlemiss' justification for
urgency (i.e., the present wired alarm circuits are not maintainable; a volume discount is available for the
purchase of all 22 alarm systems; and the merit in having the Town meet the deadline of July 1, 2008, for
conversion the Town has declared, Town-wide), we are not recommending deferral for CPA funding.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the full funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(c) DPW Equipment Purchase $523 300 GF $523 300 9-0
( )
Re lacement and New
( p )
"The Department of Public Works annually assesses its equipment needs...These assessments are
performed by the Road Machinery Division and reviewed by the Manager of Operations and the Director
of Public Works...Funds for the following pieces of equipment are requested for FY08:
"Elgin Street Sweeper (1) to replace an existing 1997 sweeper; Toro Ground Master mower (1) to replace
a 1997 model; New Small Vacuum Truck (1) to facilitate inspection and maintenance of drainage
structures in compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II
Stormwater Management Plan requirements; Toro Mower with Snow Package (1) to replace a 1998
model; and a Toro Mower (1) to replace a 1980 model." [Brown Book, Page XI-6]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the full funding.
Page 28 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(d) Woburn Street $120 000 GF $120 000 9-0
( )
Reconstruction
"Woburn Street, a major arterial roadway, has not received any major attention in several decades...It is
the recommendation of the Department of Public Works that the roadway needs total reconstruction. This
request is for funding to engage the services of an engineering firm to design a complete reconstruction of
the street, including new granite curb and new sidewalks, from Mass. Ave. to Lowell Street,
approximately 7,000' . A request for construction funding will be made at the 2008 annual town meeting.
A pre-design estimate of construction cost is $1.08 million. New water main installation will be
completed in 2007 in anticipation of this recommended reconstruction." [Brown Book, Page XI-6]
while we have no reason to question the need to reconstruct Woburn Street, we understand the Town has
not yet decided on whether the subsequent construction funding-especially if in excess of $1 million-
will berecommended for adebt-exclusion referendum, either as astand-alone project or, as has been done
in the past, as part of a broader question to address other known, major, roadway projects. Furthermore,
there has not been a decision as to whether the construction needs to be done in FY2009 or would be
deferred a year or two. We would prefer that alonger-range plan be in hand before undertaking the
proposed design & engineering (D&E) effort so the results of any such D&E are not outdated, if not
obsolete, when the construction funding is requested.
Notwithstanding our reservations regarding the subsequent construction funding, this Committee
unanimously (9-0) supports this D&E funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
$62,400 GF +
$102,300
(e) Geographic Information $195 900 water EF + $195 900 9-0
( )
S stems
y $31200
Wastewater
EF
"A Geographic Information System (GIS) is a computerized mapping system which would enable the
Town to record, manage and update all infrastructure maps and descriptive data for water/sewer lines,
drains, roadways, etc.... [A] consultant's recommendation calls for the development of GIS over a three
year period at an estimated total cost of $574,325. The estimated cost for year one is $195,875 [which is
rounded to $195,900]. In that the [GIS] will support general fund, water fund and wastewater fund
activities, the year one cost is apportioned among these funds." [Brown Book, Page XI-7; also XI-9 &
XI-10]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the full funding.
Page 29 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(~ Storm Drain Improvements $460,000 GF $460,000 (9-0)
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(~(i) Annual Street Improvement $160 000 GF $160 000 9-0
( )
Pro ram
g
"...to repair drainage systems associated with the Annual Street Improvement Program" [Brown Book,
Page XI-7]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the requested funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(~(ii)Lake Street Reconstruction $300 000 GF $300 000 9-0
( )
D&E + Construction
( )
"...for research, topographic and property line survey, alternative analysis, design and construction of
approximately 400 linear feet of drainage infrastructure in the area of Lake Street." [Brown Book, Page
XI-7]
The total consists of an estimated $40,000 for the D&E and $260,000 for the construction. As there is still
much uncertainty over even what approach will be recommended to solve the drainage issue in that
neighborhood, we would have preferred only funding the D&E so that a discrete solution, and its
estimated cost, could be presented to the next Town Meeting for its approval of the proper amount of
construction funds. However, as this is a very long-standing problem, we are somewhat reluctantly
agreeing also to support the current estimate of the construction cost-hoping that it may turn out to be
sufficient to allow the Town to move forward with construction without the need to come back to the next
Town Meeting for supplemental funding.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the requested funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(g) Sidewalk Improvements $100,000 GF $100,000 (9-0)
"...The DPW has requested $200,000 in FY08 for sidewalk improvements, which is the first of a five-
yearplan for such work. Due to funding limitations, only $100,000 is recommended for FY08.
"This request is to rebuild and/or repave existing asphalt sidewalks throughout the town that are in poor
condition, and to construct new sidewalks. The Sidewalk Committee has recommended a Master Plan for
sidewalk improvements and additions that will be used as a foundation for the work. Sidewalk projects
will be chosen from the Committee's plan each year. All work will be ADA compliant." [Brown Book,
Page XI-7]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the requested funding.
Page 30 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(h) Central Business District ~ 175 000 GF $175 000 6-2-1
( )
CBD Sidewalks
( )
"This project will continue the sidewalk program in the Center and will replace defective areas. This
request will fund the first of four phases of sidewalk reconstruction in the Central Business District.
Phase 1 is Mass. Ave. from the Library to Waltham St. Future phases will include both sides of Waltham
Street from Mass. Ave. to Vinebrook Rd., and both sides of Muzzey Street from Mass. Ave. to the
municipal lot." [Brown Book, Page XI-7]
This first phase will pick up from wherever the previously funded pilot installation ends along the
Waltham Street-to-the-Library stretch-if that pilot is deemed successful.
While we unanimously support the improvement of the CBD sidewalks, we continue to be seriously
concerned that the high cost per linear foot of the selected design has severely crimped the Town's ability
to attend to other sidewalk problems in a timely manner.
The majority of this Committee (6-2, with 1 abstention) supports the requested funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(i) Bikeway Repair/Re-paving $175,000 GF $175,000 (9-0)
"...There have been no major repairs to [the Minuteman Bikeway's] bituminous concrete surface since it
was originally constructed in 1993. It is recommended that the entire Lexington section, approximately
five miles, be repaved over atwo-year period at an estimated cost of $350,000. In addition to re-paving,
work will include drainage improvements, selective root pruning and installation of root barriers at key
points along the bikeway. $175,000 is requested for FY08" [Brown Book, Page XI-7]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the requested funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(j) Building Envelope $150,000 GF $150,000 (9-0, but see remarks)
"This is an annual General Fund request to support the upgrading and repair of municipal buildings
systems...In those years when the full amount is not expended, it will be carried forward to fund future
projects. This practice is consistent with the recommendations of the Financial Policy Committee...All
work will be managed by the DPW" [Brown Book, Page XI-12]
This funding represents this year's "set-aside" stemming from approval of Question 3 of the 2006
override which included $150K for building-envelope projects. We support use of the funds for the
general category of extraordinary building maintenance.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports the full amount and we appreciate that the two identified
projects-Women's Shower at Fire Headquarters ($35,000) & Facility Upgrades to Comply with the
ADA) ($75,000)-are only possible uses of these funds; however, we understand the Women's Shower
project would be eligible for CPA funding, but was not submitted to the CPC for review.
Provided that the Women's Shower project retains its position in the queue within the Town's
Engineering Office, it is our understanding that the Lexington Fire Department would be willing to defer
the funding until it can be submitted for CPA funding. We, therefore, urge the Town Manager-after
Page 31 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
ensuring it retains it's place in the Engineering queue-to submit the Women's Shower project for the
next round of CPA funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(k) Munroe Center for the Arts $35 000 GF $35 000 9-0
( )
Fire S rmkler S stem Evaluation
p Y
"The Fire Chief has determined that the fire sprinkler system at the Center is not functioning dependably
and needs repair or replacement. The $35,000 being requested is to engage professional services to
evaluate the existing system and prepare designs and drawings that can be used to solicit bids for the
repair and/or replacement of the system." [Brown Book, Page XI-14]
We understand this project would be eligible for CPA funding, but was not submitted to the CPC for
review. We would normally recommend that this request be deferred until the CPC could consider it;
however, the Lexington Fire Chief has stated there is some urgency to the request as the building is in
use.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(1) Dam Inspection $30,000 GF $30,000 (9-0)
"Per requirements of state law, municipal dams must be inspected every three years. A recently
completed report by a consulting engineer identified repairs to be made to the Butterfield Pond Dam and
the Old Res Dam. The estimated cost is $30,000. This report has been submitted to the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection for review and approval." [Brown Book, Page XI-14]
Subject to approval by the State of any proposed repairs, this Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this
funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(m) Traffic Mitigation $50,000 GF $50,000 (8-1)
"...There are 14 Town owned traffic signal installations, and several locations where signals may be
considered in the future. In support of the Traffic Mitigation Group, the funds requested here are for year
1 of a 4 year program to collect data, perform analyses, review proposals and make recommendations for
traffic improvements town wide. Projects will be developed and construction costs will be estimated for
future capital request." [Brown Book, Page XI-14]
We don't doubt the need for about $200,000 in traffic-mitigation efforts (i.e., $50,000/year for 4 years),
but are concerned that the effort for FY2008 doesn't reflect even the beginning of a Town-wide
perspective, or previously highlighted issues. It's not been shown to this Committee that the likely focus
in FY2008 on Hartwell Avenue (excluding the jug-handle) is a proper focus for this 1 st phase.
The majority of this Committee (8-1), however, is willing to support this funding for that narrow focus.
Page 32 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(n) Street Improvements $500,000 GF $500,000 (9-0)
"...This request is for continued funding of the annual street resurfacing program. It is comprised of
$500,000 of Town funds from the 2001 override and will be supplemented with [an anticipated] $700,000
of Chapter 90 funds (annual state funding for local road improvements)...." [Brown Book, Page XI-14]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
o NSTAR Parkin Lot
~~ g $50 000 parking Meter
Funds $50 000 9-0
~ ~
"This request...will supplement the $150,000 of Parking Meter Funds appropriated at the 2006 annual
town meeting for the design and construction of a new parking area behind the NSTAR building at
Massachusetts Avenue and Edison Way. The supplemental funds will enable a design that will match
existing lighting, granite curbing and landscaping in the CVS parking lot." [Brown Brook, Page XI-15]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(p) Replacement of Engine 5 $g0 000 GF $80 000 9-0
~ ~
Brush Truck
"...The current vehicle was purchased in 198 1, has far exceeded its useful life, and is to the point that it
fails to meet current safety and emission requirements...The $80,000 requested will replace Engine 5
with a smaller more versatile and economical unit, one that would better service the community...."
[Brown Book, Page XI-15]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this funding.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
$25,000 GF +
H Brant Re lacement
~q) ~ p $50 000 $25,000 Water
EF Retained $50 000 9-0
~ ~
Earnings
"The Town of Lexington has 1500 fire hydrants throughout the town. The request was for $100,000 for
the first year of athree-year program to replace 50 hydrants per year that have been identified as needing
replacement. Due to funding limitations, it is recommended that $50,000 per funded in FY08. In that
hydrants not only serve to deliver water for fire protection but also to facilitate the flushing of the water
system to maintain water quality, it is further recommended that $25,000 of the FY08 request be funded
from general fund cash and $25,000 from the water enterprise fund (retained earnings)." (Brown Book,
Page XI-16]
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports this funding.
Page 33 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Article 32: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
Water Distribution $1,800,000 EF X1,800,000 (9-0)
Improvements
This Article addresses proposed capital expenditures to be made during FY2008 as part of a continuing
program to upgrade and keep current the assets of the Water Enterprise Fund. For general background on
the enterprise funds, and the relationship between the budget process and the water rate-setting process,
please see the discussion under Article 22, which addresses the enterprise-fund operating budgets.
A total of $1,800,000 is requested this year, as part of a multi-year project to upgrade aging water
infrastructure, to replace approximately 8,500 linear feet of obsolete, unlined pipe or other pipe with high-
repair records. The details of the project, including the locations where work is expected to be done in
FY2008, can be found on the Brown Book's page XI-9. The amount will be funded entirely by
borrowing. The costs of the debt service for this borrowing will be borne by the operating budgets for the
Water Enterprise Fund in FY2008 and future years until the debt is retired (see the debt service schedule
contained on the same page in the Brown Book), and will be included each year as an element of the
water rates.
Capital appropriations of a similar magnitude, and for similar purposes, have been made in most years
since the Water Enterprise Fund was established. The goal is to keep the system current so the Town can
assure "dependable and high water quality, pressure, and volume for domestic needs, commercial needs,
and fire protection." In the past, the capital expenditures have been funded by a combination of
enterprise-fund cash capital and borrowing. The use of borrowing only to fund this-year's capital
appropriations will help to mitigate immediate rate increases; however, it will also increase the future
debt-service costs of the Water Enterprise Fund-as illustrated in the table on that same page in the
Brown Book-which in turn could create greater rate pressure in the future.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) approves adoption of this Article.
ArtlCle 33: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
Sewer $1,300,000 EF X1,300,000 (9-0)
Improvements
This Article addresses proposed capital expenditures to be made during FY2008 as part of a continuing
program to upgrade and keep current the assets of the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. For general
background on the enterprise funds, and the relationship between the budget process and the water rate-
setting process, please see the discussion under Article 22, which addresses the enterprise-fund operating
budgets.
A total of $1,300.000 is requested this year: $1,200,000 as part of a multi-year plan to rehabilitate 7,000
linear feet of sanitary sewer infrastructure per year for the foreseeable future, and $100,000 for year one
of a five-year program to upgrade sewer pumping stations. The details of the projects, including the
locations where the work is expected to be done, can be found on the Brown Book's page XI-10. Both
amounts will be funded entirely by borrowing. The costs of the debt service for this borrowing will be
borne by the operating budgets for the Wastewater Enterprise Fund in FY2008 and in future years until
the debt is retired (see the debt-service schedule contained on the same page in the Brown Book), and will
be included each year as an element of the sewer rates.
Capital appropriations of varying amounts have been made from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund in most
years since that fund was established. In the past, the capital expenditures have been funded by a
Page 34 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
combination of enterprise-fund cash capital and borrowing. The use of borrowing-only to fund this year's
capital appropriations will help to mitigate immediate rate increases, but it will also increase the future
debt-service costs of the Sewer Enterprise Fund-as illustrated in the table on the same page in the Brown
Book-which in turn could create greater rate pressure in the future.
This Committee unanimously (9-0) supports adoption of this Article.
Article 34:
Appropriate for Funds Re uested
q Funding
Source Committee
Recommendation
School Capital $3,010,000 (this GF ($910,000 to $3,010,000 (9-0) (vote
Projects and total amount is be self financed applies to all the
E ui ment
~ p consistent with the 100% by
' subelements)
outcome of the ro
ected ener
p J
gY
Budget , sr
savings [1 five
Collaboration- subelements];
Summit Meeting 5, $2,100,000 by
March 15, 2007) conventional
financing)
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(1) Energy Efficient Lighting $65 000 Energy $65 000
'
(LHS Gym & Field House) Savings
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(2) Mechanical Systems (LHS
Bldgs G, H, J, F; Retro-
$420
000 Energy
000
$420
Commissionin Re ort Lines 4
g p ~ , Savin s
g ,
5, & 8)
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(3) Demand Ventilation and $45 000 Energy $45 000
'
Controls (system wide) Savings
[Brown Book, Page XI-9]
Page 35 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE lst REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(4) Steam Trap Replacements Ener
gy
(Diamond, Estabrook, Bowman, $130,000
Savings $130,000
Hastin s & Brid e Schools
g~ g )
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(5) Building Insulation (above
classroom ceilings and under the $250 000 Energy $250 000
gym roof decks) (Bridge, Savings '
Bowman, & Hastings Schools)
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(6) Classroom Furnishings, $50 000 GF $50 000
'
Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E)
[Brown Book, Page XI-16]
This is for those FF&E needs generated by new in-classroom requirements.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(7) Interior Finishes $50,000 GF $50,000
[Brown Book, Page XI-17]
This is for those interior-finishes needs generated by new in-classroom requirements.
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(8) Central Administration
Relocation (White House to Old $50,000 GF $50,000
Harrington)
[Brown Book, Page XI-17]
Includes $5,000 to close-up the White House.
Page 36 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(9) Renovate Mens'IWomens'
Locker Rooms (Add Lockers) $65,000 GF $65,000
(LHS)
[Brown Book, Page XI-17]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(10) Ventilation/HVAC (LHS)
(Pottery Room, Foreign
Language Lab, Kitchen, Music $175,000 GF $175,000
Composition Lab, Information
Technology Center)
[Brown Book, Page XI-7]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(11) Mechanical Systems (LHS
Bldgs G, H, J, F; Retro- $205 000 GF $205 000
Commissioning Report Lines 3 '
& 9)
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(12) Hastings School Locker ~ 110 000 GF $110 000
'
Installation
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
S'our'ce Committee Recommends
(13) Paving (Estabrook) $50,000 GF $50,000
[Brown Book, Page XI-17]
Only do the modification of the drop-off area at Estabrook-the priority item because of safety concerns.
Page 37 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(14) Estabrook HVAC Deferred $35 000 GF $35 000
'
Maintenance
[Brown Book, Page XI-17]
Substitute higher-priority work for that described under the Extraordinary Repairs description. (See tables
which identify the above description.)
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(15) Technology $400,000 GF $400,000
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(16) Clarke Mechanical Systems $~ 10 000 GF $710 000
Replacement '
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Project Description Amount
Requested Funding
5our~ce Committee Recommends
(17) LHS Auditorium Repairs $200,000 GF $200,000
[Brown Book, Page XI-8]
Article 35: Funds Re uested
q Funding Committee
Appropriate for Source Recommendation
Senior Center $35,000 (Transfer GF X35,000 (8-1)
Design/Conceptual Previous
StUCI Appropriation)
This Article seeks approval to use $35,000 in previously appropriated, but unexpended, monies to fund
"necessary conceptual design studies to provide additional and/or enhanced space for meeting the
programmatic needs of the Council on Aging [COA]." The proposed studies will include "conceptual site,
floor and parking plan options; facilities audits; code compliance reviews; zoning requirements; and cost
estimates."
In its February 6, 2006 report, the Senior Center Action Plan Committee recommended what has been
called the "two campus" approach, maintaining and renovating the existing Senior Center space at
Muzzey for Supporting Day Care programs and social services, and using the Munroe School for social
and recreational activities. The Committee concluded that the Munroe School was the location most likely
available and best suited for meeting Senior Center needs. It was one of the potential sites for a senior
center previously identified by the Senior Center Siting Committee in 2001.
Page 38 of 39
APPROPRIATION COMMITTEE 1st REPORT, APRIL 4, 2007, TO 2007 ATM
For at least the past 15 years, the Munroe School has housed the Munroe Center for the Arts. There has
been no agreement that the Munroe Center for the Arts will or should vacate the Munroe School so that it
can be made available for the use contemplated by the COA.
Recently, additional sites for the Senior Center have been suggested, the School Administration Building
("White House") location and a portion of the Old Harrington School among them. The Harrington
School had been identified in 2001 as a potential site by the Senior Center Siting Committee; however,
because it was unlikely to be available for a period of several years, it was removed from consideration.
The White House location was not identified as a potential site.
The 2000 Annual Town Meeting, under Article 8(a)(ii), appropriated $50,000 to fund a feasibility study
for a Senior Center, but conditioned use of the funds on the requirement that the study could only be done
on a location if the owner or person in control of the location had agreed that it could be used by the
COA. In response to subsequent requests of the COA, $15,000 of those funds was authorized to be used
for studies of the Senior Center's current and potential programs, uses, and users. Thus, $35,000 of the
FY2001 appropriation remains unused.
It is those unused funds which this Article seeks authority to use for conceptual and other studies of both
the White House and the existing Senior Center at Muzzey in furtherance of the "two campus" concept.
The studies will assess the feasibility of accommodating all programs for Lexington seniors on the two
sites. They will be conducted by an architect and will be grounded upon three information sources: (1) the
February 2006 study prepared for the School Committee to determine how the White House might be
developed to house the school administration; (2) "as built" drawings showing and describing the existing
Senior Center space at Muzzey, so an assessment of possible reconfigurations for more effective use of
the space can be made; and (3) the COA's assessment of how the White House and Muzzey might
accommodate the space, use, and program requirements for senior programs, services, and activities.
In light of the three information sources, the remaining $35,000 of the FY2001 appropriation should be
sufficient to fund the studies. This Committee understands that the Request for Proposals will stipulate
that the fees to be charged will not exceed $35,000.
The majority of this Committee (8-1) supports adoption of this Article. This Committee looks forward to
seeing the results of the study as they will enhance the Town-wide discussion of appropriate siting, scope,
and financing of a new senior center.
Page 39 of 39