Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-01-30-CPAF-rpt ce.°1775°'149%, GF � N.+ d _.. Town of Lexington, Massachusetts 1-, ! ■Pb z.C. Fx r NGt9;�� OFFICE OF SELECTMEN JEANNE K KRIEGER,CHAIRMAN PETER D ENRICH DAWN E.McKENNA TEL (781)862-0500 x208 LEO P McSWEENEY FAX (781)863-9468 WILLIAM P KENNEDY March 25, 2002 Dear Town Meeting Members, The attached report from the Community Preservation Act Feasibility Advisory Committee provides critical background information to Warrant Articles 29 and 30. At the request of the Committee,the Board is providing all Town Meeting Members with copies to assist members in making an informed decision. At this time,the Board of Selectmen has not decided which position it will take on articles 29 and 30. This report is provided for informational purposes. i. Sincerely, jedia /CI"- Jeanne K. Krieger, Chair Board of Selectmen 1625 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE•LEXINGTON,MASSACHUSETTS 02420 • e-mail selectmen@ci.Iexington ma us 1,003-1 the COO/13141N TOSONT 00S XCrf 0011011N POI13010/ CO4NarVftt 3aisas,nr 30,7,007, _ TABLE OF CON'EN'S NTS - 1. THE COMMUNII PRESERVATION ACT FEASIBILITY ADVISORY COMIVU 1�. .E 1 A. Committee Members I B. Selectmen's Charge to the Committee 1 - 2. 1 COMMUNI i Y PRESERVATION ACT ...■■ ..1 A. Adoption and Implementation Process 2 B. Tax Surcharge Options 3 C. State Matching Funds . - ..■3 3. MANUAL IMPLICATIONS■ .. 4 -, _ A. Revenues from the CPA ■..4 B. Taxpayer Impact _ .5 P - 4. LEXINGTON'S INDEPENDENT COMMITMENT TO Co i i _ . _ PRESERVATION .. G A. Lexington's Record of Support for Community Preservation Goals 5 B. Citizen Attitudes Toward CPA Goals .7 • - S. BUDGETARY CHALLENGES TO Co 1'n i PRESERVATION AND . im BLUE RIBBON 601‘134mEE PLANNING PROCESS .8 .- 6. FOUR SCENARIOS FOR CO H H)1'PRESERVATION Vella t AND l ii.tio T t -CPA ...9 A. Scenario Gni: Immediate and Unrestricted Adoption of CPA.. .......9 B. Scenario Two:Postponement of Presentation of CPA Until 2003 ..p..10 C. Scenario Three:Indefinite Postponement of the CPA 10 D. Scenario Four:A Targeted CPA Strategy 11 7. RECOMMENDATION OF int CPA COMAu I i I E .12 - 8. APPENDICES • .14 A. Prioritizing Community Preservation--Discussions of Accomplishments, Goals and Opportunities in Each Area Eligible for CPA Funding. ..15 B. Status of CPA Implementation --..21 - . C. Projected increases in total tax levy based on the Blue Ribbon Plan and augmented by 1.5%CPA surplus .....23 D. Lexington's CPA expenditures as%of total budget,FY 1971-2002 ■24 _ - - E. Detailed breakdown of Lexington CPA expenditures,FY1971-2002 25 L COMMUM PRESERVATION ACT FEASIBILITY ADVISORY COM1Viti i iF The Community Preservation Act Feasibility Advisory Committee(hereafter,the CPA Committee)was established by the Board of Selectmen on January 29 2001. Its membership represents a cross-section of interests and expertise among Lexington citizens relevant to the opportunities and challenges presented to the town by the state Community Preservation Act,enacted in 2000. A. Committee Members David Rudner,Chair; Steve Colman(Planning Board representative);Ronald Colwell; Marshall Derby(Lexliab representative);Peter Enrich(Selectmen representative);Dan Fenn;Marilyn Fenollosa(Historical Commission representative);Michelle Hutnik (School Committee representative);Joyce Miller(Conservation Commission representative): Sadly,Ronald Colwell passed away in the summer of 2001;David Williams was appointed as his replacement. B. Selectmen's Charge to the Committee "The Community Preservation Act presents many opportunities and challenges for Lexington. It is not clear what the long-term impacts of this Act will be on the Town's financial status. Some analysis of the tradeoff needs to be made between the benefits of the Act's vision and the long-term fiscal implications of its acceptance. The Committee should use the Blue Ribbon Committee report and the Lexington 2020 Vision Report as reference for future financial impact while examining the long-term acquisition plans of the Conservation Commission and LexHab." 2. 1.m COMMUNti Y PRESERVATION ACT The Community Preservation Act is statewide enabling legislation designed to encourage cities and towns to allocate funds for open space,historic preservation, and affordable housing. It authorizes municipalities to adopt a property tax surcharge of up to three percent for Community Preservation purposes and exempts the surcharge amount from the restrictions of Proposition 2 1/2. It also provides for partial State matching funds financed by a new fee imposed on all real estate transactions at the Registry of Deeds. Communities can expend the funds derived from these two sources on any of the three CPA purposes(open space,historic preservation, affordable housing),with the condition that at least ten percent of each Year's proceeds must be allocated to each of the three areas. 1 4 A. Adoption and Implementation Process Across the Commonwealth,property taxes traditionally fund the bulk of day-to-day operating expenses for safety,health,schools and other aspects of basic municipal infrastructure. For many towns and cities(although not Lexington),there is little systematic planning or investment in open space,historic preservation or affordable housing. The CPA establishes a method of funding specific initiatives in these areas. In- - addition,it specifies a process by which funds are to be allocated: •The Selectmen,or a group of citizens,place an article on the Town Meeting warrant to authorize a Town-wide referendum on whether toartici ate in the CPA. Town Meeting p specifies the rate of the proposed CPA surcharge(up to three percent)and which of the permissible exemptions to include. •If the CPA is approved by Town Meeting(or alternatively initiated by a petition process),the question of adoption goes to a Town-wide referendum,which must be held either at a state general election(in November)or at a town regular election(for Lexington,in March). Approval is by a majority of those voting. •If the CPA is approved by the citizens,a specific CPA Bylaw that sets up and guides a CPA Committee,to be appointed by the Selectmen,must be approved by Town Meeting. This committee may include from five to nine members and must include representation from the Conservation Commission,Historic Commission,Planning Board,Housing Authority and Board of Park Commissioners,or their functional equivalents. (This Bylaw can be conditionally enacted in advance of the referendum,but does not take effect until town-wide approval of the CPA.) • The CPA Committee analyzes the town's community preservation needs and annually develops a detailed plan for allocating funds to be submitted for approval by Town Meeting. • Under provisions of the CPA, the spending plan must allocate a minimum of ten percent of CPA annual revenues (including both tax receipts and State matching funds)for each of the three areas of concern targeted by the Act(conservation open space,historic preservation, and affordable housing).The remaining 70%can be allocated for any combination of allowed uses,including a wide range of recreation open space uses as well(in addition to the uses eligible for the first 30%). Definitions of permissible uses in each of the eligible areas are quite broad, although a number of questions remain about the precise scope of eligible uses. •If the CPA is adopted but is found to be unsatisfactory,the Town may vote to cease participation after the first five years ofinvolvement,using the same referendum process as was originally used for adoption. The property tax surcharge percentage can be modified at any time, through the same referendum process. 2 Many other cities and towns in Massachusetts have already addressed the question of whether or not to adopt the CPA. The experiences of those communities are summarized in Appendix B. B. Tax Surcharge Options Municipalities that adopt the CPA have the option to levy only a portion of the permitted three percent CPA tax surcharge. The rate can be set anywhere between zero and three percent, and can subsequently be changed by voter referendum. In addition,each community must decide whether to adopt any or all of three permissible exemptions from the CPA property tax surcharge. One exempts all commercial and industrial properties. A second exempts the first$100,000 of value of each residential property. A third provides an exemption for all low-income households(those with incomes below 80%of the regional median household income)and for all low and moderate-income senior citizens(over age 65 and with household income below 100%of the regional median household income). (As of June 2001,the regional median household income for a family of two was about$56,000;for a family of four, it was about$70,000.) C. State Matching Funds With respect to State matching funds,the calculation is quite complicated and depends,in part,upon the size of the original pool of money allocated for the CPA and in part upon the number of municipalities to which it will be distributed. The funding source for the State matching funds is a flat fee on each real estate transaction recorded at a Registry of Deeds. The State anticipates that the fee will generate approximately$26 million annually, all of which is dedicated to a special fund restricted to use for CPA matching grants. The CPA stipulates that participating communities shall receive no less than a 5%match, and no more than a 100%match,in each year,with the actual amount varying primarily with the number of communities participating. For planning purposes,this Committee has adopted a conservative estimate that envisions the State matching funds declining over a five-year period, as more communities gradually adopt the CPA. Thus,we assume a 70%match the first year,a 35%match the second year, and 10%matches for the ensuing three years. 3 3. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS A. Revenues from the CPA A three percent CPA surcharge on the Lexington property tax,without any of the allowable CPA exemptions,would generate estimated revenues over the next fiveY ears . as follows: 2003 2,029,428 2004 2,093,664 2005 2,159,505 2006 2,226,993 2007 2,296,168 A lower surcharge rate would, of course,produce proportionally reduced revenue streams. Adoption of the exemption for commercial and industrial properties would reduce the CPA yield by approximately one-fourth. The Town Assessor estimates that the revenue loss from this exemption(in 2001)would have been$537,359. Adoption of the exemption for the first$100,000 of value of each residentialP roperty would reduce the CPA yield by approximately one-sixth. The Town Assessor estimates that the revenue loss from this exemption(in 2001)would have been$352,983. The Committee has been unable to arrive at a realistic estimate of the cost of the exemption for low-income households and low and moderate-income senior citizens. A good estimate would require detailed information matching household incomes to property values. In fact,we did not even have access to 2000 Census data giving the general distribution of household incomes for Lexington. In addition, a realistic estimate would need to take account of the frequency with which eligible households would actually go through the paperwork process necessary to qualify for the exemption. It should be noted,however, that the income thresholds for this exemption are reasonably generous, and would likely apply to a reasonably large number of senior citizens in town. As a rough guess,we estimate that the combined impact of the low/moderate income exemption and the first$100,000 exemption would reduce the yield of the surcharge by not more than one-third. As explained above, the yield from the property tax surcharge will be supplemented by the State matching funds,which we estimate will be 75%in the first year, 35%in the second, and 10%thereafter. 4 So,the total estimated CPA revenues,assuming a three percent surcharge rate and adoption of the two residential exemptions,would be roughly as follows: Year 3%Surcharge Exemptions CPA tax State match Total Revenues Pa7) 2003 — 2,029,428 -676,476 1,352,952 947,066 $2,300,018 7" 0 2004 2,093,664 -697,888 1,395,776 488,521 $1,884,298 2005 2,159,505 -719,835 . 1,439,670 143,967 $1,583,637 2006 2,226,993 -742 331 1484 662 . � 148,466 $1,633,128 2007 2,296,168 -765,389 1,530,779 153,078 $1,683,857 '0 B. Taxpayer Impact - • Adoption of the CPA would increase property tax bills of residents(and businesses)by the amount of the surcharge rate approved by the voters. This impact would be reduced, and for some taxpayers eliminated,if Lexington were to adopt either or both of the two residential exemptions authorized by the Act. The maximum effect of the.CPA would be a three percent add-on to property tax bills. (Actually the cost would be slightly less than this,because the surcharge is not computed on the small fraction ofproperty tax liabilities that are attributable to debt exclusions for town capital projects.) Had the CPA been in effect(at the maximum 3%rate)in the current year,it would have added a residential tax ofroximatel $034 per$1,000 of aPP Y assessed valuation. For a.home assessed at$350,000,the incremental annual cost would have been about$120; the cost for a home assessed at$700,000 would have approximated$240. (For homeowners who itemize their deductions in calculating their federal income tax,these surcharges, like all property tax payments would qualify as deductible expenses,thus mitigating a portion of the actual impact of the surcharge.) If Lexington were to adopt the exemption for the first$100,000 of residential valuation, then the tax impact on each household would be reduced by approximately$34. Thus, a $350,000 home would face a CPA surcharge of about$85,and a$700,000 home would pay about$205. If Lexington were also to adopt the exemption for low-income households and for low and moderate-income senior citizens,then those households falling below the income threshholds would face no tax impact from the surcharge. Of course,if Lexington were to adopt the CPA with a surcharge percentage below the maximum three percent,thetaxpayer impacts would be reduced proportionally. For example,if Lexington adopted a two percent surcharge,the tax impacts-described in the preceding paragraphs would each be two-thirds of the amounts stated. 5 4. LEXINGTON'S INDEPENDENT COMMITMENT TO COMMUNI Y PRESERVATION A. Lexington's Record of Support for Community Preservation Goals Over the years,Lexington has pursued its own interests in community preservation quite independently of the recent CPA legislation. During the past 30 years,we have spent _ _ $20.6 million or 1.2%of our budgets on CPA concerns,more than half of which went for the purchase of Pine Meadows. Appendices D and E provide figures for the past annual CPA expenditures in both a percentage of total town expenditures and as absolute numbers,respectively. Beyond this,Lexington has instituted a variety of zoning rules and regulatory procedures that also make important contributions to community preservation. In addition,the Town has pursued its commitment to affordable housing by establishing LexHab and supporting it with contributions of town-owned land. And, individual citizens and private organizations have also made important contributions to further Lexington's commitment to the goals of the CPA. The impact of investment and regulation has been considerable, even without taking - advantage of a State-supported program like the CPA. This is particularly clear in our commitment to open space,evidenced by purchase and maintenance of spectacular conservation lands,provision of substantial open space for recreation purposes(although not enough to meet citizen demand), and strong zoning codes and regulatory procedures for new development. In addition,on two occasions Town Meeti B. Citizen Attitudes Toward CPA Goals Lexington's commitment to CPA concerns is demonstrated by word as well as deed, especially in the Town's efforts to develop a systematic approach to town planning, generally. The Committee has reviewed several recent reports addressing community attitudes toward the Town's goals and commitments. These studies reflect broad public support for the goals of the CPA: 1."Community Conversations"and the Mercer Report In the early 1990's, the Town engaged in an extensive series of structured meetings, focus groups and a mail survey,conducted with professional assistance from the Mercer Consulting Group. Four core values emerged from this process: education,public safety,open space, and affordability. The Mercer Report indicates that public opinion polls match and support the Town's efforts to acquire and preserve open space. The Report's findings about the value of affordable housing are more difficult to gauge,since the Mercer Report is vague about what is meant by the term"affordability,"and it is not clear that it means the same thing as the definition it receives under the CPA. It is notable that historic preservation does not emerge as a value in the opinion polls conducted by Mercer, although this may be an artifact of the polling process. 2. The"2020 Vision"Planning Process In 1998,the Selectmen,-in conjunction with the Planning Board and School Committee, appointed an Initiating Committee to develop a strategic planning process that would engage the community in an organized series of discussions to create and implement a vision of the town's future. This led to appointment of a 2020 Vision Steering Committee in 1999, a series of public workshops throughout 1999 and the creation of a Core Participants Group and six work groups to explore the full range of citizen concerns identified by the public meeting process. Several of these concerns --described as themes,goals and action items in the 2020 Vision Report published in 2000--overlap with areas of concern under the CPA and reflect Lexington's continued commitment to community preservation. In particular: Under Theme I: Promote and Strengthen Community Character,goals included "Provid[ingj increased housing options to promote diversity of income&age;" "Creat[ing} strong incentives to maintain and expand affordable housing,"and _- "Preserv[ingl and maintain[ing]historical areas&celebrat[ing]the town's place in nationalhistory for residents and tourists." .A number ofro sed action.items under p � these goals would fall within the CPA's funding criteria. Under Theme III: Sustain and Enhance Physical Character and the Larger Environment, a central goal was to "Increase protected open space." One of the action items under this 7 goal was enactment of a land bank measure similar in some important respects to the CPA, although funded from a different source. 3. Comprehensive Planning Process In addition,the Planning Board is presently in the process of preparing,with broad _ - community participation,a Comprehensive Plan for the town. Portions of the Plan are currently being circulated in draft form. The Comprehensive Plan will address,among other matters,the status and future of the town's open space,affordable housing,and cultural resources. In sum,the question before us is not whether Lexington should engage in community preservation activities,but whether the CPA offers Lexington a useful mechanism for continuing to support our long term and effective commitment to community interests that fall under the Act. One crucial aspect of this question concerns the nature,scale and priorities established by the Town's annual projected budget. This Report addresses that question in the following sections. 5. BUDGETARY CHALLENGES TO COMMUNit t'PRESERVATION AND THE BLUE RIBBON COMT'n i i ILE PLANNING PROCESS Lexington faces and will continue to face severe budget problems for the foreseeable future. To address this challenge, the town has instituted a variety of planning and budgeting procedures through its regular appointed financial committees(Appropriations and Capital Expenditures)and through an Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon Capital Finance Committee(I3RC) appointed by the Selectmen. The BRC Report has become a central tool in the Town's long range planning efforts. Specifically,it found that Lexington will require an effective annual residential tax-rate increase of 5%over the next ten years to accommodate inflationary pressure on the Town's operating budget and to fund long-term debt commitments for the schools,senior center, landfill,DPW garage and road projects. The BRC observed that such annual increases of 5%were consistent with the history of the past decade,but cautioned that discipline would be required to stay within thisparameter over the next ten years. Detailed projections for expenditures on projects identi f ed by the BRC, along with the tax impact of anticipated debt exclusions and overrides are presented in Appendix C. _ It is noteworthy that no capital investment in communitypreservation projects is _ _— PP , considered in the BRC Report. Accordingly, should the Town choose to pursue or expand upon its traditional commitment to open space,historic preservation and affordable housing through future appropriations and investment,we will need to increase the effective residential tax rate beyond those levels projected by the BRC,or else scale back on some of the other commitments addressed in the BRC's analysis. 8 It goes without saying that this is an enormously sensitive political matter for taxpayers and for community leaders. At stake is a decision whether to continue investing in community preservation and,if so,whether to do so by cutting back on projects and priorities considered by the BRC or to do so by further raising the tax levy. The possible - . . impact of such decisions on citizen support for other funding priorities represents an additional source of concern. It is in this context that we address the opportunities and liabilities afforded by the CPA. 6. FOUR SCENARIOS FOR COMMUNH Y PRESERVATION WITH AND WITHOUT ink; CPA The primary questions facing the Board of Selectmen with regard to the CPA are whether,when,and in what form to present the CPA for potential adoption by Town Meetaig and for a subsequent to';n_w ide referendum. in formulating possible recommendations to the Board,the CPA Committee considered four different scenarios for presentation of the CPA to Town Meeting and the community at large. What follow are brief descriptions of these four scenarios,along with summaries of the arguments for and against each approach. A. Scenario One: Immediate and Unrestricted Adoption of CPA Under this scenario,the Selectmen would present a motion for adoption of the CPA at the upcoming 2002 Town Meeting,without any conditions or restrictions upon the uses to which the CPA revenues would be used(other than the underlying statutory identification of the CPA's three purposes--open space,historic preservation, and affordable housing). This approach would allow Lexington to take the fullest possible advantage of the CPA at the earliest opportunity. In particular,it would allow the Town to qualify for state matching funds quickly, during the years when the matching percentage is likely to be highest. And it would provide the Town with new funding for spending on CPA purposes at the earliest time. Conversely,it would also arouse at the earliest occasion the political risks attendant upon presentation of a CPA proposal to the voters. Advocates of this scenario observe that the timing will never be "good" for adoption of the CPA in Lexington. In the absence of the CPA,major expenditures for open space acquisition may still be considered on an ad hoc,emergency basis,but funding for schools,roads and other infrastructure will likely continue to take precedence in the minds f capital planners and voters. Without a long-term plan_and a dedicated source of funding,historic preservation projects,in particular,are unlikely to receive significant town funding. The CPA is designed.to provide voters in each community the opportunity to decide whether to commit funding to the CPA purposes,purposes that Lexington has repeatedly endorsed in the past. Lexington voters should be given the opportunity to vote on the CPA at the earliest available opportunity. 9 Opponents of this scenario focus on the political dangers presented by a property tax increase to provide new funding for unspecified CPA.-eligible expenditures. Enactment, or even presentation to the voters,of a CPA property-tax surcharge,especially during an economic downturn,is likely to erode citizen support for other important funding priorities. This concern is particularly acute in the face of both an impending debt exclusion referendum this spring and an anticipated operating override referendum next year to fund the Fiscal Year 2004 budget. B. Scenario Two: Postponement of Presentation of CPA Until 2003 Under this scenario,Town Meeting action on the CPA would be deferred for one year. This year's Town Meeting would provide an opportunity for discussion and education concerning the CPA, and would be asked to enact a resolution to continue the process, laying a groundwork for approval of the CPA the following year. Advocates of this approach believe that the Town may well not be ready at this time to undertake commitment to the provisions of the CPA. The risks of losing at a referendum are too great to warrant proceeding without adequate opportunity for community education and discussion about the CPA's merits. In general, adoption of the CPA after a one-year delay would present the town with most of the same benefits and risks discussed above in connection with Scenario 1. The one- year delay would cost us one year's worth of CPA revenues(including what is likely to be the most generous year for state matching funds)and would likewise defer any CPA expenditures for a year. At the same time,the delay might mitigate some of the political costs of speedy presentation of the CPA to the voters. C. Scenario Three: Indefinite Postponement of the CPA Under this scenario,the Selectmen would delay Town Meeting consideration of a proposal to adopt the CPA until after the current round of capital expenditures covered by the Blue Ribbon Committee's analysis have been funded by the Town,in order to avoid competition for tax revenues between the CPA and previously identified capital and operating needs. In practical effect,this would entail postponing any action on the CPA for the foreseeable future, foregoing both the opportunities and the burdens entailed by adoption. In essence,the arguments for and against this approach are the precise inverses of the arguments discussed in connection with Scenario I above. Proponents-of-this approach observe that adopting the CPA would increase the town's annual tax levy beyond the 5% annual increase anticipated under the Blue Ribbon Committee report. At a time when it is not clear that the town is prepared to support even the tax increases envisioned by the - Blue Ribbon Committee, it is not clear that the town would choose to incur the additional CPA tax surcharge. Worse, general resistance to the cumulative increases in the tax levy 10 from the CPA on top of the overrides and debt exclusions foreseen by the Blue Ribbon Committee could not only spell doom for adoption of the CPA but,in a spin-off effect, could make it difficult to win override and debt exclusion referenda aimed at funding Blue Ribbon investments,especially those needed for schools,roads, and operating budgets. , Opponents of this approach,in turn,focus on the potential benefits for recognized community values that would flow from approval of the CPA, and on the importance of affording the town's voters an opportunity to decide whether or not they are prepared to support and fund adoption of the CPA. D. Scenario Four: A Targeted CPA Strategy Under this final scenario,proposed as a compromise between the preceding options,the Selectmen would propose adoption of the,CPA at the earliest time when the Town was otherwise proposing to increase the property tax levy(most likely via a debt exclusion)to fund expenditures that are eligible for CPA funding. The CPA tax surcharge to be proposed under this scenario would be scaled at a level sufficient,together with state matching funds,to cover the specific proposed project(s), as well as the other expenditures for other CPA purposes required under the terms of the state legislation. The adoption of such a limited CPA,because it would qualify the Town for state matching funds,could cover the anticipated expenditure at a taxpayer cost below what would be required without CPA funding. At the same time,the state matching funds would also be used to make possible additional eligible expenditures. This would seem a hard opportunity to turn down: For example,imagine that a debt exclusion is approved this coming spring to fund a purchase of conservation land,with a principal amount of$4 million to be repaid over a 10-year period. This debt exclusion would add approximately$600,000 to the property tax levy in the initial years(gradually declining to $420,000 in year 10 and ending thereafter). The town could,instead,fund this expense through adoption of the CPA, at a rate which would generate somewhat less than$600,000. The impact on taxpayers in the initial year would be less than the cost of a simple debt exclusion. Adoption of the CPA would also bring the town state matching funds,conservatively estimated at 75%of the surcharge amount in the first year. These state funds could be used in part to cover the conservation purchase,while also providing revenues to fund the required 10%shares for affordable housing and historic preservation, and still leaving additional revenues to be used for any of the CPA purposes, at no additional taxpayer cost. Over the ensuing years, state matching funds are expected to shrink. But so would the debt service on the conservation land purchase. Even with an initial CPA surcharge less than the initial year's debt service cost,the CPA levy and matching funds would remain adequate in each year to cover debt service on the original conservation purchase as well as the required CPA spending on affordable housing and historic preservation. While 11 taxpayers would lose the benefit of modest annual reductions in the tax levy needed to cover the debt service, they would gain the benefits of the state matching funds and of the additional spending on CPA purposes,without any increase impacting their taxes,beyond what they had already approved for the original conservation purchase. Proponents of this approach see it as a constructive compromise between the competing concerns of supporters and opponents of CPA adoption. This limited approach to the CPA would gain at least a portion of the benefits available from the CPA without incurring most of the political costs of imposing a substantial tax increase on the town's residents. The limited CPA would qualify the town for state matching funds and would make available a stable and predictable revenue stream which would go towards all three CPA purposes(although not,perhaps,at the level that adoption of the fu l 3%surcharge would permit). And it would commit the Town to an annual process of reviewing and prioritizing needs in the areas eligible for CPA funding. At the same time,it would not subject residents to tax increases above and beyond those that they were otherwise prepared to undertake in the form of debt exclusions,and hence would not pose the threat of seeping or adding additional taxes for unspecified and unprioritized purposes. Indeed, it would allow the Town to undertake expenditures at costs below what would have been incurred in the absence of CPA adoption. Opponents of this approach are concerned that its complexity would render it both hard to explain and inherently suspicious to the voters. In addition,they note that it would probably result in a tax surcharge lower than the maximum permitted three percent rate, thereby depriving Lexington of the full benefits of the CPA(and the full benefit of available state matching funds). It has also been suggested that use of the CPA to fund activities that the Town would have otherwise undertaken through ordinary debt exclusions is contrary to the purpose of the CPA,which was to expand local spending on the CPA's purposes. Structuring such a limited approach would require considerable care and careful public education. Under this scenario,it is not recommended that the initial vote to approve a purchase of conservation land be conditioned in any way upon adoption of the CPA. Rather,the limited adoption of the CPA would only be placed before the voters after a vote on the debt exclusion vote for purchase of the conservation land. If the debt exclusion-were approved and the CPA defeated,then the conservation purchase would go forward, funded byan ordinarydebt exclusion. (The land acquisition would need to be q deferred until after the vote on the CPA,in order to make that purchase eligible for CPA funding,but this could be readily accomplished by use of a purchase option on the property.) 7. RECOMMENDATION OF'lu CPA Codi I EE The Committee unanimously recommends that the CPA be presented to the 2002 Town Meeting for review, discussion, and possible action. The Committee was expressly composed of representatives of the multiple conflicting perspectives and interests 12 affected by the CPA legislation. So,it is perhaps not surprising that the Committee was unable to arrive at a consensus recommendation concerning whether,when, and how the Selectmen should present a specific CPA proposal to Town Meeting. While the Committee has arrived at unanimous recommendations concerning a range of secondary matters, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate,with regard to the central questions presented by the CPA,to simply articulate a range of policy options and to state the range of views on the Committee with regard to those options. In the preceding section,we have presented four different scenarios,designed to reflect the range of alternatives available to the Board of Selectmen. In this section,we report the range of views on the Committee concerning those four scenarios, and then turn to our recommendations concerning several related topics. Of the four scenarios, three of the nine members of the Committee favored Scenario 1, the presentation to the 2002 Town Meeting of a proposal for unrestricted adoption of the CPA. One member favored Scenario 2,a one-year delay beforeasking Town n Mee g to vote on the CPA,in order to allow further opportunity for community education and discussion. No members identified Scenario 3,indefinite postponement of Town Meeting action on the CPA, as their preference,although several of those preferring Scenario 4 observed that Scenario 3 would be their second preference. Five members of the Committee favored Scenario 4,presentation of the CPA to Town Meeting at the time, and in the amounts, appropriate to fund eligible CPA expenditures that would otherwise be funded through increases in Town property taxes.' In light of the lack of consensus concerning which path the Selectmen should follow,the Committee did not try to arrive at a decision about the rate of the property tax surcharge that the Selectmen should recommend if and when they bring forward a CPA proposal to Town Meeting. The Committee does,however,unanimously recommend that any CPA proposal for Lexington should include both of the permissible exemptions for residential taxpayers (the$100,000 exclusion for all residences and the exemption for low-income households and low and middle-income senior citizens). In addition,the Committee unanimously recommends that the Selectmen should not propose inclusion of the authorized exemption for all commercial and industrial property. Further,the Committee is unified in the belief that the town would benefit from a more systematic and long-term plan for its support of and investment in open space,historic preservation, and affordable housing._ Whether through the CPA Committee that would be established with adoption of the CPA or through alternative planning processes,the -- Committee therefore recommends that the Town engage in a periodic and systematic review of its investments and opportunities in these areas,with a goal of identifying priorities for future spending. ' It should be noted that,at the time that the Committee polled itself on these four Scenarios,David Williams had succeeded Ronald Colwell as a member of the Committee. In addition,Scott Burson was filling in as an alternate School Committee representative for Michelle Ilutoik. 13 Finally,we also recommend that this report of the Committee be made available to the citizens of Lexington by being placed on the town website,by being publi APPENDIX A. Prio ritizin g Community Preservation This Appendix takes up each area of concern under the CPA and explores the values, accomplishments and possible goals for future investment in each area. These discussions were prepared by the Committee members representing each of the areas eligible for CPA funding. Because many aspects of Recreation Committee spending might qualify for CPA funding as well,the Committee also invited the Recreation Committee to offer a parallel discussion,which is also included in this Appendix. 1.Historic Preservation and the Community Preservation Act The Town of Lexington is rich in cultural resources. The town's role in the Revolutionary War created a stewardship responsibility of its historical sites that extends to the nation at large;its later role in commercial expansion due to the arrival of the railroad created a building boom of late 196 and early 20th century housing stock that continues to distinguish it. Structures of the recent past—Moon Hill,Five Fields and the Peacock Farm enclaves throughout town,among others—enhance Lexington's diverse architectural heritage. These resources of national and local importance are deserving of preservation and protection,and to manage these cultural resources the town benefits from an array of organizations. The Historic Districts Commission of Lexington was established in 1958 to`promote the educational,cultural,economic and general welfare of the public through the preservation and protection of historic buildings,places and districts through the development of appropriate settings for said buildings,places and districts and through the maintenance of said buildings,places and districts as landmarks of historic interest." The HDC ensures that development or demolition of properties within the four historic districts may proceed only following a determination of appropriateness. Similarly,the Lexington Historical Commission was created"for the preservation, protection and development of the historical or archeological resources"of the town. The LHC has prepared a nine-volume inventory of historical structures located throughout the Town that documents over 1400 structures. The LHC administers the town's Demolition Delay Bylaw, and also endeavors to educate citizens of the breadth and importance of Lexington's cultural heritage. On a private level,the Lexington Historical Society plays a number of key roles, including the ownership of the Hancock-Clarke House,Munroe Tavern and management of Buckman Tavern_under lease from the town, as well as through the presentation of educational programs and the maintenance of an important archive. Tho-Museum of Our National History also provides resources and programs that complement the cultural management efforts of the Town. 15 Our history enhances our sense of place, attracting people to come and live in Lexington —and stay. The impact of our historic resources also extends beyond the boundaries of the town,bringing important tourist dollars to nourish the local economy. Yet despite this local and national importance,the town allocates few,if any,financial resources to the acquisition and maintenance of its historic structures. Indeed,unlike many communities in the Commonwealth,Lexington has a zero budget for the operations of its Historical Commission. The result is deferred maintenance,missed opportunities for acquisitions,inability to produce programs and other educational materials,and a general level of frustration on the part of local preservationists. Exacerbating this situation are increased development pressures that threaten open space and the town's dwindling stock of smaller,historic homes. Adoption of the Community Preservation Act in Lexington would alleviate this situation. By mandating that at least 10%of funds raised be applied to historic preservation purposes,the Act would create a dedicated source of funds for historic preservation projects. The addition of state matching funds would enable the town to implement meaningful projects. These could include any of the following: • Acquisition of historic properties buildings,landscapes, sites and structures. • Bricks and mortar repairs to town-or privately-owned historic buildings, including preparation of plans and specifications for construction, architectural/engineering assessments, and modifications for accessibility. • Documentation,survey, conservation and restoration of historic landscapes,including historic burying grounds and monuments. • Survey and planning grants for inventory and reuse of historic resources. • Educational programs such as an historic house plaque program or walking tours. CPA funds could also be used to purchase preservation easements from owners of historic houses that would equalize their economic value so that they could be sold as houses and not teardown opportunities. Funds could bridge the economic gap to make possible the acquisition and adaptation of older,historic homes for affordable housing or assisted living as an alternative to teardown and redevelopment. By planning comprehensively,older housing-stock could provide adaptive reuse possibilities for-- housing and avoid development pressures on open space. Adoption of the CPA in -- Lexington would thus forge alliances among the conservation,housing and preservation constituencies in town. 16 2.Affordable Housing and the Community Preservation Act The mission statement from the act establishing Le encapsulates the goals that Lexington has adopted for creating opportunities for affordable housing in the Town: "...for the purpose of investigating and implementing alternatives for the provision of and providing affordable housing for persons of low,moderate and income..." We are slowly working towards the State goal of having 10% of the Town's housing stock classified as affordable,but do not think that goal will ever be met. It is not just the cost(450 houses @$350,000=$157,500,000)but Town Meeting is on record as not wanting any large-scale affordable housing projects. We could put many affordable units on Met State or the old Middlesex City Hospital land,but Town Meeting would probably not vote it. Within these constraints,we are producing affordable housing through our scattered site program at a rate of about 1 per year and are purchasing units as they become available in our price range. Our current,more important role,however,is to preserve some of the affordable housing in Lexington that is in danger of no longer being affordable. This group includes the 26 low income units at Katandin Woods which The Town can buy at the 1988 construction price of about$100,000 per unit. LexHAB has the necessary down payment for these units and is prepared to buy them when and if they become available. The owner is not required to convert to condos,but if and when they do,we are ready. - Between new scattered site construction and preservation of existing stock,the Town is shy about 450 units to make the 10%goal and we see no practical way for that goal to be reached. Even so, we are tanked second among comparable towns in the region with 7.85%of our housing stock classed as affordable by the State. If the CPA were to be enacted in Lexington,we would like to use our 10%as part of the Conservation Commission's acquisition program. If they were to acquire a large parcel through CPA funds,we would like to use a front corner for an affordable house. This would give the Conservation Commission a larger amount to work with while we would be able to get a house lot we would not have ordinarily be able to acquire. Two of Lexington's core values are providing economic diversity and open space. Each of these competes for valuable town resources -we build our scattered site homes on surplus Town land which could otherwise remain open. These will always be in conflict and by working cooperatively,we have been able to achieve a balance. 17 3. Conservation Open Space and the Community Preservation Act The Lexington Conservation Commission(LCC)is dedicated to preserving open space and to that end has identified the remaining parcels of open space in Lexington which need to be protected. These include large and small parcels,some Town-owned,but most of which are privately owned. Although the Commission has not presented the Town with a proposal for land purchase in several years,the Town Meeting, and the Town,have been very supportive of the Commission in its mission to preserve open space in Lexington. In the past the Town often received Self-Help Funds from the State for land purchases but funding by the State for Self-help funds has been minimal.As open land values in Lexington rise,and as open space becomes more scarce,the LCC must and is exploring other mean c of protectin g open space,such as purchasing development ri�ni,atw,purchasing conservation restrictions,and relying on the landowners to protect their land by giving conservation restrictions and/or portions of land to the Commission. The LCC does have a Conservation Fund which was established by Town Meeting for land acquisition and associated costs. However,there has not been an addition to it in several years. The fund is quite small and primarily used for the necessary legal costs associated with land acquisition. The LCC does have a 5-year Open Space and Recreation Plan,and a Land Acquisition Committee report that identifies open space in need of protection.But it is difficult to develop a 5-year plan of acquisition because of the unpredictability of when various parcels will be come available. An annual infusion of funds would be invaluable to the Commission. The funds could be applied to a bond for land acquisition,banked for future use or used immediately for land purchases. The CPA would give the Commission additional support and flexibility in land acquisition. 4. Recreation Open Space and the Community Preservation Act The mission of the Recreation Committee,through the_.Recreation Department,is to plan ._ and administer public playgrounds and recreational centers in the Town and to expand and promote active and passive recreation,leisure activities,play, sports and physical education. While organized and informal recreational programming in Lexington involves both indoor and outdoor activities, the facilities and physical assets managed by and for the 18 Recreation Department are outdoor facilities(numerous playing fields, aquatic facilities, Pine Meadows Golf Course, community playgrounds, etc.). Indoor programming is presented in facilities managed by others (schools, Cary Hall,Munroe Center for the Arts,etc.). By far, land suitable for expanded recreational pursuits(both active and passive) is a major ongoing concern,now and in the future. Lexington is a dynamic community that generates wide-ranging demands for recreational programs and facilities. In the era extendingthroughthe 1980s, the communitymade a conscious and continuing effort to set public lands aside for public playing fields (many adjacent to schools) and recreational facilities(mainly at the Center Playground site). Parcels of land so-designated for recreation purposes were,more often than not, marginal lands that were seasonally wet and challenging to maintain as playing fields. From the 60s through the 80s,tax levy investments totaling about$2M were made, including nearly$7001(for a Center Pool complex in 1979. In 1988, a major parcel of open space was acquired by the Town n w hn the so-called Pine Meadows property was purchased for$11M. With that acquisition,the management of the 9-hole Pine Meadows Golf Course was turned over to Recreation to operate as a municipally-owned,public golf course while a significant portion of the property was set aside as passive open space. With the acquisition of Pine Meadows Golf Course,and its associated fee-generating potential,Town Meeting voted, in 1990,to reconfigure Recreation to an independent Enterprise Fund operation. As such, all Recreation yearly operations and capital investments were placed into a"fee-for-service"mode of operations. To an overwhelming extent,the recent era since 1990 has been one in which Town tax levy investments in Recreation have not been made because of the Enterprise Fund's ability to not only provide an expanding array of recreational programming for Lexington's diverse citizenry,but also to continue vital investments to maintain and improve its existing g outdoor facilities and assets. During the Enterprise Fund era that infrastructure investment is approaching$2M. The one area that has seen no meanin funprogress since g 1990 is the acquisition of new lands(or the reallocation of existing open space) for recreational purposes. Whether for conservation purposes of retaining open space or for recreation's purposes, an overarching Community Preservation priority is the acquisition of land for public- purposes. For recreation,the most pressing land acquisition need is for the establishment of areas suitable for youth field sports of soccer, lacrosse and field hockey. 3' Soccer and lacrosse, in particular, continue to place demands for multi-purpose fields beyond-our ability to provide them. As a result,the fields that-presently exist are used to such an extent that it is extremely difficult to properly maintain them in an appropriate playing condition. The complex of three multi-purpose fields at Lincoln Park serves as an example. They serve as the practice and game fields for the High School soccer and lacrosse teams(boys and girls; varsity,3v and freshmen),Lexington Youth Soccer and LISC leagues ranging from the upper grade school levels into high school,Lexington 19 Youth Lacrosse for grades 5-8 (boys and girls)and,lastly,organized adult soccer leagues. Essentially continuous usage starts in early April and extends into November and is so demanding on-the fields that by fall, all three fields are in need of serious restoration. If the CPA is enacted in Lexington,recreation open space investments that could be considered would involve the acquisition of open space parcels and the development of that space and pre-existing,but undeveloped,town-owned lands for recreation uses. Examples would be(1) fields for youth sports such as soccer and lacrosse that would need to be 2-3 acres each to allow for the field and appropriate space for off--street parking, (2)trails and paths through wooded areas that could be developed suitably for passive recreation activities such as hiking, ski touring,nature walks,birding, (3) parkland areas, such as Tower Park, for general community use and(4)renovation and reconstruction of recreation facilities such as playgrounds,golf courses, etc. • 20 • APPENDIX B. Status of CPA Implementation . . Status of Pommunity Pr- -•a , .• • ;, n II 1 ' II ' I .5 •0 I Last modified 1/16/02 www.tplorgicpa Of the 67 communities that held ballot votes on CPA, 35 communities passed it. .. That's a 52%success rate! • - . This is an informal list maintained by the Trust for Public Land.It is continually updated as new information reaches us.All information has been verified with municipal officials. For more information,please contact Donie Pizzelia at(617)367-6200 x340 dorrie.pizzellaratpkorg Community Current Status Surcharge Exemptions* Election ' A CPA PasseclathaibtamtiOn • ._......_ ..__. _.... Agawam Passed election 2,851 yes,1,836 no(61%yes) 1 percent Low income 1116101 Amherst Passed election 2276 yes,979 no(70%yes) 1 percent Low income,first$100,000 413101 Aquinnah Passed election 99 yes,62 no(61%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 5/9/01 Ayer Passed election 467 yes,402 no(54%yes) 3 percent Low income 4/23/01 Bedford Passed election 809 yes,483 no(63%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 3/10/01 Boxford Passed election 633 yes,497 no(56%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5115/01 Cambridge Passed election 12,016 yes,4,861 no(71%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 11/6/01 Carlisle Passed election 477 yes,412 no(54%yes) 2 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/22/01 Chelmsford Passed election 1437 yes,929 no(61%yes) 0.5 percent First$100,000 4/3101 _Chilmark Passed election 220 yes,129 no(63%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/25101 Cohasset Passed election 998 yes,756 no(57%yes) 1.5 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/7/01 Dracut Passed election 1754 yes,1283 no(58%yes) 2 percent Low income 51T/01 Duxbury Passed election 1936 yes,886 no(69%yes) 3 percent None 3/24/01 Easthampton Passed election 1,329 yes,1,157 no(53%) 3 percent First$100,000 11/6/01 Easton Passed election.2005 yes,1885 no(52%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/24/01 - Georgetown - Passed election 1102-yes,1063 no(51%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/14/01 Harvard Passed election 1116 yes,429 no(72%yes) 1.1 percent None 4/3/01 Hingham Passed election 1688 yes,1164 no(59%yes) 1.5 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/28/01 Holliston Passed election 588 yes,267 no(69%yes) 1.5 percent Low income,first$100,000 5122/01 Hopkinton Passed election 1122 yes,712 no(61%yes) 2 percent Low income,first$100,000 5121/01 Marshfield Passed election 1404 yes,1002 no(58%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/28/01 Medway Passed election 701 yes,615 no(53%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/7/01 Nantucket Passed election 1534 yes,936 no(62%yes) 3 percent All three 4/3/01 Newton Passed election 6,225 yes,6,013 no(51%yes) 1 percent None 11/6/01 Norfolk Passed election 853 yes,666 no(56%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/1/01 North Andover Passed election 2152 yes,1693 no(56%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 3/20/01 Peabody Passed election 7,936 yes,7,389 no(52%yes) 1 percent None 11/6/01 Rowley Passed election 482 yes,359 no(57%yet) 3 percent Low income 5/8/01 Southampton Passed election 378 yes,266 no(59%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 5/7/01 Stow Passed election 904 yes,514 no(64%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/15/01 Sturbridge Passed election 590 yes,519 no(53%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 4/9/01 Tyngsborough Passed election 1138 yes,575 no(66%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000__ 5/8/01 Wayland - Passed election 736 yes,537 no(58%yes) 1.5 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/24/01 Westford Passed election 2168 yes,1184 no(65%yes) 3 percent. Low income,first$:100,000 5/1101 Weston Passed t election 925 yes,480 no(66%yes) 3 percent- Low income,first;100,000 -5/5/01 -...., • CEASSIcalleatailat-Upcoming Election Ashby On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 5,2001 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/22/02 Ashland On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 9,2001 3 percent First$100,000 5/7/02 Braintree On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 16,2001 1 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/2/02 Buckland On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 9,2001 1 percent None 2002 .... Dartmouth On ballot by Town Mtg vote November 13,2001 1.5 percent First$100,000 4/1/02 Grafton On ballot by Town Mtg vote October 15,2001 1.5 percent Low income,first,$100,000 5/6102 Great Barrington On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 7,2001 3 percent First$100,000 I May 2002 Hampden On ballot by Town Mtg vote April 30,2001 1 percent First$100,000 _ 2002 Hudson On ballot by Town Mtg vote November 19,2001 3 percent All three - 5114102 Ludlow On ballot by special Town Mtg vote Oct 1,2001 3 percent First$100,000 3125/02 North Attleborough On ballot by special Town Mtg vote Oct 15,2001 3 percent Al)three 2002 Norton- On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 7,2001 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4129102 Norwell On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 15,2001 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 2002 Plymouth On ballot by Town Mtg vote October 25,2001 1.5 percent None 5/11102 Reading On ballot by Town Mtg vote November 15,2001 1 percent Low income,first$100,000 412102 Rockport On ballot by Town M tg vote September 10,2001 3 percent Ail three 2002 Stockbridge On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 21,2001 3 percent First$100,000 May 2002 Sudbury On ballot by Town Mtg vote April 2,2001 3 percent All three 3/25/02 Swansea On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 21,2001 3 percent First$100,000 Apr 2002 Wakefield On ballot by Town Mtg vote November 5,2001 1 percent First$100,000 4123/02 r Wareham On ballot by Town Mtg vote October 16,2001 3 percent First$100,000 2002 Westport On ballot by Town Mtg vote April 5,2001 2 percent None . 3/11/02 Whitman On ballot by Town Mtg vote May 5,2001 3 percent All three 2002 Williamstown tan ballot by Town Mtg vote May 15,2001 2 percent First$100,000 5/14/02i FA Failed at&lilaElection Ashfield Failed election 94 yes,219 no(30%yes) 2 percent Low income 5/5/01 Ashland Failed election 580 yes,1169 no(33%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 5/1/01 Belchertown Failed election 613 yes,906 no(40%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/21/01 Berlin Failed election 296 yes,314 no(49%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/14101 Beverly Failed election 3,908 yes,5,826 no(40%yes) 3 percent All three 11/6//01 Boston Failed election.31,336 yes,41,216 no(43%yes) 2 percent Low income,first$100,000 11/6101 Framingham Failed election 1894 yes,4418 no(30%yes) 3 percent First$1000,000 _ 4/3/01 Gloucester Failed election 2,667 yes,5,656 no(32%) 3 percent First$100,000 11/6/01 Halifax Failed election 217 yes,289 no(43%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 5/19/01 Hull Failed election 789 yes, 1089 no(42%yes) 1 percent Low income 5/21/01 Kingston Failed election 529 yes,652 no(45%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/12/01 Malden Failed election 3,129 yes,5,531 no(36%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 11/6/01 Merrimac Failed election 477 yes,493 no(49%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/14/01 Methuen Failed election 2,381 yes,6,029 no(28%) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 11/6101 Orleans Failed election 558 yes,825 no(40%yes) 2 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/15101 Plainville Failed election 357 yes,839 no(30%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 4/2/01 Plympton Failed election 370 yes,443 no(46%yes) 3 percent Low income 5/19/01 Rehoboth Failed election 637 yes,693 no(48%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 412/01 Rockport Failed election 382 yes,418 no(48%yes) 3 percent All three 4/3/01 Saugus Failed election 2,943 yes,3,670 no(45%yes) 1 percent None 1116/01 Sharon Failed election 1627 yes,1698 no(49%yes) 1 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/1/01 Shirley Failed election 261 yes,624 no(29%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/15/01 Southborough Failed election 771 yes,793 no(49%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/14/01 Sterling Failed election 579.yes, 1099 no(35%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 5/21/01 __ ---- Sudbury Failed election 737 yes,870 no(46%yes)- 3 percent All three 3/26/01 ___ Wakefield Failed election 1241 yes, 1611 no(44%yes) 1 percent Low income 4/24/01 Waltham Failed election 2,431 yes,3,463 no(41%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 - 11/6/01 West Tisbury Failed election 257 yes,318 no(45%yes) 3 percent First$100,000 4/12/01 Westhampton Failed election 157 yes, 173 no(48%yes) 1 percent None 6/2/01 Westwood Failed election 1111 yes, 1492 no(43%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 4/30/01 Winthrop Failed election 1647 yes, 1967 no(46%yes) 3 percent All three 5/7101 Woburn Failed election 3,414 yes,6,738 no(34%yes) 3 percent Low income,first$100,000 11/6/01 22 APPENDIX C.Projected increases in total tax levy —Chart III— Expected Operating Overrides,All Capital Projects,and Community Preservation Act Community Preservation Act 3%of Assuming Tax Levy 35% Assume Estimated Tax Levy Limit with Limit Sans Revenue Percentage alt Operating&Debt-Exclusion Debt Loss for State State Year Overrides Exclusions Fairness Incentive Incentive 2000 61,322,549 9001 67,912,067 2002 71,400,478 2003 75,657,066 2,029,428 1,319.128 70.0% 923,390 2004 82,886,823 2,093,664 1,360,881 35.0% 476,308 2005 87,585,084 2,159,505 1,403,678 15.0% 210,552 2006 90,654,901 2,226,993 1,447,545 10.0% 144,755 2007 96,716,506 2,296,168 1,492,509 10.0% 149,251 2008 97,879,907 2,367,072 1,538,597 10.0% 153,860 2009 100,161,285 2,439,749 1,585,837 10.0% 158,584 2010 165.509,773 2,514,242 1,634,257 10.0% 163,426 Effective Rate of Increase Totals 2001 Through 2010 • - 18,126,819 11782 433 20.2% Z380,124 • MMIMIMMI= Total Cumulative$Impact of Extraordinary Funding Through 2e1 154,839,769 65% • - - • APPENDIX D. Lexington's CPA expenditures as % of total budget,g t, FY 1971-2002 CPA Appropriations as a Percentage of Town Budgets FY 1971 Through FY 2002 •,--,-,-1...-.;'- ::;.-1-..-:-,-.7-i .;::.--:,....^y re _ �R - _.�,-. _r?-y.--' >n;_- - -c~•`c.. _ ,;1._ _ � - - - .Y ,- :z-:,:4:1.-,-.1- fir`{ _ _ .t -ST`r'' =+C - - --- --F,i : �;'"�l:.i. `!'tom.f�: -_,:----::---ire.--_,-:�� .�. �,r -�� �•-- Conservation 1971-1975 $296,032 $120,996,212 024% 1976-1980 $990,099 $154,894,911 0.64% 1981-1985 $155,900 $189,601,366 0.08% 1986-1990 $1,770,000 $257,336,609 0.69% 1991-1995 $0 $342,089,126 0.00% 1996-2000 $1,500 ' $433,471,613 0.00% } 2001-2002 $0 $213,731,864 0.00% $3,213,531 $1,712,121,701 0.19% Recreation/Conservation 1971-1975 $0 $120,996,212 0.00% 1976-1980 $0 $154,894,911 0.00% 1981-1985 $0 $189,601,366 0.00% 1986.1 wo 311,000,000 $257,336,609 427% 1991-1995 $0 $342,089,126 0.00% 1996-2000 $0 $433,471,613 0.00% 2001-2002 $0 $213,731,864 0.00% $11,000,000 $1,712,121,701 0.64% Recreation 1971-1975 $201,200 $120,996,212 0.17% 1976-1980 $888,500 $154,894,911 0.57% 1081-1985 $172,350 $189,601,366 0.09% 1986-1990 $565,000 $257,336,609 0.22% 1991-1995 5577,040 $342,089,126 0.17% 1996-2000 $2,590,000 $433,471,613 0.60% 2001-2002 $435,000 $213,731,864 0.20% $5,429,050 $1,712,121,701 0.32% Affordable Housing 1971-1975 $21,500 $120,996,212 0.02% 1976-1980 $0 $154,894,911 0.00% 1981-1985 $754,500 $189,601,366 0.40% 1986-1990 $0 $257,336,609 0.00% 1991-1995 $0 $342,089,126 0.00% 1996-2000 $0 $433,471,613 0.00% 2001-2002 $0 $213,731,864 0.00% $776,000 $1,712,121,701 0.05% Historic Preservation 1971-1975 $120,000 $120,996,212 0.10% 1975-1980 $880 $154,894,911 0.00% 1981-1985 $0 $189,601,366 0.00% 1986-1990 $0 $257,336,609 0.00% 1991-1995 $0 $342,089,126 0.00% 1996-2000 $20,000 $433,471,613 0.00% 2001-2002 $0 $213,731,864 0.00% $140,880 $1,712,121,701 0.01% GRAND TOTAL1971-1975 $638,732 $120,996,212 0.53% 1976-1980 $1,879,479 $154,894,911 1.21% 1981-1985 $1,082,750 $189,601,366 0.57% 1986-1990 $13,335,000 $257,336,609 5.18% 1991-1995 $577,000 $342,089,126 0.17% 1996-2000 $2,611,500 $433,471,613 0.60% 2001-2002 $435,000 $213,731,864 0.20% $20,559,461 $1,712,121,701 1.20% Community Preservation Act Committee k I ,� -.1,,,,,,,,4,•4+f ,,,,,K ,E V•1+",1.'' r: � '. .1 •K` J (` 001'•4. ,.i .' ,, �•,•.' ��(• 1•.,"�V,. f I,. r1! 1, .4' 'f 11 1' I'S f i,r ,. **1. i',A",' Y .14. !t1.r� :.r.l , k.•y,, .� r'.� '>', �,•.� ` yci. �,,, r,.t� ' ,t•.�'i,� ,�+ ,fir„'f(.�+�'�. ,+ ►�,,• ,t.:', t+i 1. �, 1..,•�.� 'V,;�'•,t.44(1'1' ti. I„�„��}A �1��,+•y1, •�'��. w al � 'I.'•:, �''+yj�I3� •�, :1,},;7.,,,,,, 1_ Q•.. +•r..s+"' y r'r '{ �..+r J144; ;�•t,''' Iii�• 4,�,� �7 . {4y,, t '.- `. �i ,-.f� 1 1 "�. , L' 17,(1..,,,:. *sir•'-:•.„, , •.1 f, ,�r►�+ ii,,.Y r q�`+L �i.• 1 'S"'4t'1��y'.y� •'I••'%'n��,�i ! �.Cy•.Y'•� rC`h..�ta• .-1'�j�i .. V+'. �.A� •��'��••�,y '�,pa,�.,.� " � 'I•,' r A,•� �;���11ryr•T +�� �. r4 +..1 ''1 r,. ♦ 5 a r "ar"r1 f •,�r{Y ,, Y rjl:. I P 1 ,. {►r]i ► •3 !,• •" VA 4,,,' , �•,ti 4, ei . r; ,- t.r •�f f tt �`+`� •1,(' � � 'r'SI,•�,•.{ ��t '�,• ' �y y.� w'". r�A r�llr � ..L„. S.f � ''�S ��:A�,+f,f ��� ','�• 4 Y +.+•R I r �'�� 1�' ,T� Nl,a L, y,,r?''r 1 "�� �' • +S� 1� .�'1',r r� 't' a• sir 4� . .t '+ rr S �1,' i�i�. '71J+• Y 'irJa....,�; .,, � ���•�1 ti..•1 ,�Ya rr�ti ] � J'1(tC(..� .�4. G• t' �, q , r•• 1 �,b4. 1� .r•. �•'�r a' M,' ,/� . *: *4. w•PA©; 1r'a F..a u�,•� - 5' t r '\Ir ,r -,,E ,, t. i! k, .i'+ 'i5,' r7\i'''':1- .,ri,i.+7 ♦ ^ * r1! ?r ' �+y j7..1- 3,,,;.!, , •l'•t['as•� � i .s'.• . a .mow. • f 1. "'� } .. * 1, 4 ` ,� �• ij � �.,ti. � . t. � �•� +w.►:.r+w.,+,iT w w �.,� ►.� Rw �'� •J. �j..,.'� r t• et 1 1.Open Space Conservation Simonds Brook;Ivan St 109,950 2.524 purchase 9 /67 1970 $4,000 11738 262 3 (1970.2000) Whi'pie Hill 38,037 0,873 purchase 12/30/70 1974 $6,500 $2,500 $4f000 Great Meadows 28,595 0.656 purchase 1/5,/71 1974 $3,280 $0,,,, 3 280 West Farm 31,000 0.897 purchase„ 11111 2/17/73 1976 $28,800 $0 $28,800 ril Hayden Woods ,674,824 15,400 purchase 12/.1S72 1976 $93,750 $93,750 Hayden Woods 1,045,440 24.000 purchase 1/31,73 1976 $198,700 $146,225 $52,475 tZI Chiesa Farre 90,010 2,066 purchase I 1/26/74 1976 $22,500 $22,500 co Lucky Penny I 1 0 576 24,600 purchase 10/17)73' 1977 $195,000 $97,500 $97,500 Katandin Woods - purchase. 12/20/7 1977 $170,000 $85,000 $85,000 Zp Hayden woods 129,269 2;968 purchase 12/1974 1978 $10,888 $5444 $5,444 O. • Parker Meadow 547,114 12.560 purchase 7/8/75 :1979 $200,000 $605000 $140,000 ©' Justin/Bernard 100 2.318 purchase 902/75 1979 $11,000 $3,300 $7,700 CD Dunback Meadow 53,143 1,220 purchase 1/16/76 1979 $4,000 $4,000 m Justln(Bemard 34,181 0.785 purchase 11/8/78 1982 $19,500 $15,600 S.1i904 Old West Farm 46,579 1.348 purchase 19!/ ,81. 1985 $270(000 0 $270,000 O.Q Chiesa Farm 601,999 13.820 purchase 10/9 81 1985 $1,500,000 0 $1,500,000' 4 Augusta Land „ 348,480 8.000 purchase 11/17/92 1996 $1,500 $0 $15Q0 Ci a Simonds Brook 829,818 19.050 taking 10/11/67 1970. $70ar 00 $53,288 $16,712 '"t Burlington strip 0.000 taking 9/9/69 1971 $1,000 11,000 tigl Burlington strip 214,510 4,924 taking 9,x9/69 1971 $3,500 $3,500 �a Concord Ave. 614,196 14.100 taking 3/26/68 ,,,,1,971, 63,000 ta,500 $31,500 p Concord Ave. 496,148 14,390 takin „ ,,, '3/26(68 „ 1971 36,068 $18,034 $18,034 ca Hastings Sanct. 70,545 1,619 taldn 5/30/73 1971 $6,000 $0 $6,000 0 Burlington strip 103,098 2.367 ta n 9/9/69 1971, $11,500 112,500 Dunback Meadow 452L153 ' 10.380 ta ing 1 28 69 1972 *30,000 30 OL 00 Cl 4. 0 kin 1169_ 1972- 115,000 56 872 $58,128 *d Juni r Hill 1,081,595 Z 83 #ta g / / ,- ........'_ � r � Upper'Hine Brook 408 157 9,370 taking 3/17/701972 ,543 $17,803 18,740 Shaker Glen 731,372 16,799 taking 5/5/70 105 $$ � �115,000 $41,143 $73,858 co .71 Whipple Hill 457,380 10.500 taking 6/291974" $27,600 13 800 $13 8. 00 ,,� Liberty Heights 74,851 1.718 taking 30,2.1_194 7 $,9,336 $4,618 $4,7118, co Paint Mine 30,832 0.708 takj,n,,g 11/16/71 1975 0.1,850 $2,000 $9,850 a Park 50 530 1.160 taking 2/29/72 1975 $18,000 $9,000 $9,000 ; Bowmana . � � ldyiwiide _„ 410,771 9.430 taking 3/14/72 1975 „ $200,000 $1001000 $100,000 0' Hoer Vine Brook 518,800 11,910 taking 1 19,72 1975 $68,900 $30,000 $38,900, +� Lower Vine Brook 489,179 ' 11.230 taking 12/141/71 1975 $57,000 $28,500 $28,500 Hayden Woods 24,606 0.565 takln 11/14/72 1976 $8,92.2_ $4,000 . $4,000 _ 400 752 9.200 12/12/72 1976 70,000 46125 „ „ $23,875 Chiesa Farm ,,,,,,�► $ User Vine'Brook 192,10© 4,410 to ng 2/27/73 1976 15 000 8,000 $8,000 Cranberry ikiii { 1,020,794 23.434 taking 11/6/73 1977 $73,929 $15,201 $58,728 Mea herviiie I 281,350 6.459 taki „ 4/28/81 ' 1977 $500 $500 �..1 4 ���� ��� i ��� �� . ���� , Q$47 takingd � � �,,, Hayden Woods 36 886 „„ 6117)75 1.177 �.�,. , Lilian Road 15,486j 0.356 taking 6/17/75 1977 $o cz0 N 1,,: r ,, 'K iJ,„•,;„,:,.;...,y '{'. i. i11•'"+,hry�?• '►4.', y.,'•'. •� 'Y. 'i•. .7„.,,,'.4.:,,:x,r,'•. ,.� r .. .,••i0 �r i. . .y ..1,- i,`.. .•,S w. 'R;1x .r: '''.1,:_"1;',.,,‘ „'11.1 :-r—.r. .µ.;'S4•, '0.1,i.,:t r •4i ,, `S 1 ,r••I' 5n ,. ;�.► :5.•�.• • •. .s f t .•. ,1.'.1',,r, . 4. i:'a`• ,. •,• .. ► -w h• A ■ 3; , i•M,d'E i J ,Tip' •' `�,' .i' •• r L ' l r n r• t :'wr �1h •:•h'� '•`••! r� •` 1.1 1r,• • i•.•i ?....;i, .� 7 '* 1'w�•,'• .�� + •'+ �' ii'1� ���'�•���.•. .�' •� { ■! 4,,•:.. .•t.i rr 1 til tw.F w s. 1'1; i",i{4ryb i'•"k I. +• r,�. .i •,� r f, 4. r i .l' }, .. 1 4•rs' ��•.11. ''ti. .-r• r 1 '�'i h+'A:t`� •.�r .Y .4 YI��� !rt:i..y• f ',. •r' r� cc -4,-”' r .i� -1 • �•I� �j''i,r�' 1 wr.ww.�' #5 r�.1ir,•r'r' r' �� •� �••._FL•ir`• a�_..I.�i��ryl �•''1�i� SY t''',..1.11. y ,J•y•r�'� Ik ���y .�r►y4F ,��t• �• t: •�r NY4r � � 1 • •, •� • r .r f• r• ! rr '' y'. ,, 'it�•i w i��•'J M .A. •' r T r r •r••� `•;T:.S� ,• :,'r•.• of rd l: �' • ''f'fr , r • ''.r/r.�wL/:rR�rtM...a. � R •� e - •, ,��W�t�d{�L�i ,�1' 1'1��'.!L'.',t'• �S+x+ � .w��r Jr'�'i..�'• r�..•'• .i �' 4 '�:l. • •r Y4 r•.'j.I_7���,�C� }� ,��••7 4' t Lucky Penny o ��, k,• a '.I r =1 11,A �: kra..l/, r w nY:'•'i r•1.•i E v` .7�. '_14 1 g 1� :!:' 21,112 0.485 taking 6/1775 1977 , . Daisy Wilson Mdw. 348,480 8.000 taking 12/19/74 1978 $75,995 $37,997 $0 Dunback Meadow 323,215 7.420 taking12/19/74 1978 , 7 $37,998 Lower Vine Brook 696,960 * 16.000 takin7/22/75 $66,529 $32,200 $34,329 Fiske Hili 4,200 0.096 taking _ 12/7/76 1971978 $197,500 $98,250 $99,250 Valley Road 82,625 1.897 takIng 12/7 76 1978 $0 Meagherville 11,875 0.273 taking 12/7 76 1978 $0 Parker Meadow 57,745 �,326 tang 12/7/76 978 $0 Meagh.(irophet Sw. 561,924 12.'340 takingg 12/7/76 ,1984 $37,000 $37,000 Dunback Meadow 1984 $15,000 $15,000 Hobbs Brook 535,788 12.300 taking 12(21/76 1980 $100,000 $0 $100,000 Vine Brook Village 29660,984 ` 4 1.400 taking 12/7(76 1980 $0 8 .6.800 taking 12/26/78 1981 $0 Great Meadows 57,935 1.330taking 2/26(80 1982 Liberty Heights 14,818 0.340 transfer 1t7/75 1974 Liberty Heights 148,342 3.405 transfer 2 7 $0 Paint Mind 121 2 1974 $0. 1,484,525 34.080 transfer 2/22/72 1975 Whipple Hill I . • 1,114,163 25.578 trOftansfer 2/12/74 1977 $0 .Mea hervllle : 811,612 18.632 transfer 9/13/77 :1977 $0 Burlington strip 29,660 0.681 transfer 6/17/75 :1977 $0 Concord Ave. $0 522,720 12.000 transfer 6/17/75 1977 $0 Hayden Wood's 396,891 9.111 transfer 6/17/75 1977 Lower Vine Brook 304,879 6.999 transfer 6/17/75 1977 0 IQ Paint Mine 30,900 0.709 transfer 6/17/75 1.977 0 West FarmD 19,988 0.459 transfer 6/17/75 8a3kln playground / 1977 �D 7,405 0.174 transfer 11/13/73 1977 $0 Justin/Bernard . 21,780 0.500 transfer 11/13/73 1.977 Dunback Meadow 2,553,577 58.622 transfer 2/19/75 1978 $0 Dunback Meadow 12,181 0.280 transfer 1/7/75 i 978 $0 Fiske Hill 105,302 2.417 transfer 12/7/76 1978 SO Wood St. 539,575 12.387 transfer 12/7/76 1978 $0 Justin/Bernard 65,340 1.500 transfer 12/7/76 1978 $0 Valley Road 129,987 2.984 transfer 1217/76 1978 $0 M_„ harvilie 61,648 1.415 transfer 12/7/76 1978 0 Burlington strip 13,104 0.301 transfer 6/17/75 1978 $ Lower Vine Brook $0 500,940 11.500 transfer 7/22/75 1979 $0 Wlllard's Woods 31,000 0.712 transfer 7/22/75 1979 0 Meagharville 8,300 0.191 transfer 7/22/75 1979 $ transfer $0 Dunback Meadow 24,647 0.566 1.i ansfer 2/1/77 1980 • $0 Marvin St. 24,091 0.553 transfer 12/7/76 1980 0 Parker School 140,200 3.219 transfer 1[31/78 1980 $0 Simonds Brook 45,362 1.041 transfer 12/7T76 1980 $0 Lower Vine Brook 77,287 1.774 transfer 12/26/78 1981 $ Swami) '"�""` Tophet Swam $0 1,110,780 25.500 transfer 12/2678 1981 `•. $0 Dunback Meadow 83,226 1.911 transfer 12/26/78 1981 $0 Granger Pond 91,476 2.100 transfer 12/26/78 1981 � Poor Farm , i $0 505,296 11.600 transfer 2/26180 1983 $0 Hayden Woods i 27,057 0.621 transfer 1985 $0 i I R • , i i • ..,jtJ..1"i��i.l T 42,'f�,o,1'H'i, � I.••' '�A�,.• �,�) •`,�.f'A' .f �.... , , � � n .'nI Ir' 'rr r,• 4 1 " '. .' , 4 •}. • ! ,..f.:.7,',4 e''rr 4"',' '+ •f+ rJJri1 ,v.�„�ti..}4 y.,C{• 4..i •;•.,'ti.: i.y�',"..1...i•.;. •, .ti�•;�1.'f'+. ',t �. '�r.•�.{�,� •� ,�.e i'�'J�,T;:•:'y ��'�.7'4•L��� a� .' �• r.r y.•.r. , i �f•f � 1 .• -i` J,..,,;,„,+,,,.1 '. .. '., '+.Y L'• •�• 1,`tl,}Cf� .,., •r n..• ti ! ,n�;.,,,,: .:, },r.•.n.; a s T !v'1: •,•:i ;. t• -,••''''''''"v•.• ,*'.,. '7. a. }., MI`• 1• , + ei r� 1 �`"rr, nM�'•~� .� •, �; '�;.• •���� _#� C. C ':x�y, ��, 1 :,ii, S ,,,3) r y'� hi.'yy 3i•.e,may,'•' / , 5 '�:. �� � �� .f� ,.r �, rJ-.Q .�1 '�. ` ..( 'a.. i�w �Ir. ,�, •'', if.`: '`Ylr ;' �:� �) .,• , ,. .SV a.. .. ".! ..�. �, Rv„ 'L. :ti , • .`i, •'s'• r ._ �•, .1- ,.\1,:—.....-11,��r� • f• .�� ',I. I+r 1' fi/� �I y `,; ` '�1 •�' � �{ �. .,r. ■ a +. :i' 'i 4 :..f .. �.•. ,r•�l•'•���. .i••'•.F -L.` ,� w : - '+ •� .r;A S .' +.N..• .}+y` �L.3 :1N" ti ;4';,t'=.0 rt�� � � ,f � �YM•.a, •i w ��. ri'y~.�' S .�'�'`� �w ..�?_, .� {k 7 „r, �'��.^�•• '�' 1��in � 1.• ,1'_►'.'i4?", iy i.•. �'�/cif Y,1-'�-IrA�.r�i+�����•"' `'t►.�....4•.r �• � * ! ., ,�) '• 1j�. �+ .•�•'., r�. L .�• •'�' �� .�,.'.,�`�' a '�.` y• i1� 1"••frR,a�'i•'i F '� fir%' i�`�� ,'�. p,� ::',;•;; i+ r ...:: t.. ,'' Iii 1 -, 'Cj 1' ': E,r .}Y.li : r '! w•rye ".14e.- ,'/ {� 1..'.'. r �. Bates Road f , �; •�' ~�, '�'� G�"1� •'r `-E– ��%r�t f r�'"��•,�• ��i 1: +�;. ^� �,� 405,108 9.300 transfer Lillian Road 1991 $a' M„�eaghervllle i,566,751 r61.076 transfer 1992 $0 35.968 transfer 1995 Sutherland 1084,644 24.900 transfer 1995 $0 Willard's Woods 2,916,342 66.950 transfer $0 Worthen Road Corridor 1995 $0 361,366 8.296 transfer 1995 0 Hennessy Field 435,600 10.000 transfer 1999 0 1 Justin/Bernard = 23,500 0.539 gift 1/8/70 1970' Hayden Woods 33,061 0.759 gift 3/16/68 1972 Q . 0 Concord Ave. gift 1(8170 1973 $0 Juniper Hill 87,742 2.014 gift 6123100 1974 Trophet Swamp 23,810 0.547 gift 6(7/70 1974 $0 Whipple Hill 30,370 0.697 gift 12/13170 $ Parker Meadow 164,657 3.780 gift 1/6173 :1976 $0 Simonds Brook 450,846 10.350 gift 4/5(72 :1976 $0 Mea hervtiie $0 ,..._.� 6,250 0.143 gift 10/26/94; 1977 $0 Dunback Meadow 3,275 0.075 9Ift • 5(3174 1978 0 Scott Rd. 165,092 3.790 gilt 9/19/75 $ Hammer Hill 37,276 + 0.856 gIt , 10(5175 $0 Dunback Meadow 226,512 5.200 gift 10118177 $0 Jerry Cataldo Res 233,482 6.�►56,gift*' 10/14/80 $0 Turning Mill Pond 333,670 7.660 9 * 1‘ $0 Pheasant Brook pond 134,165 3.080 Ift 517 81 $0 Lower Vine Brook 813,655 18.679 gift 8/12/81 $0 Brookhaven 142,006 3.260 ggift 10189 $0 IW Lane0 30,523 0.701 gift 1994 p Ivy Lane 23,959 0.550 gift 1994 0 64,74 Maple Street Lot 42,585 0.978 gift 1995 $ Carmel Circle 16,084 0,369 gift 12/13/95 $0 Granger Pond 66211 1.520 gift I $o TOTAL CONSERVATION 37,975,585 871.799 AllgiiirErafW Recreation/ Appropriation for purchase of the Pine Conservation Meadows Golf Cain 1988 $11,000,000 TOTAL RECD CONSERVATION , r i l i I 1 • 1•'M.+'' !C 7�' r•i t/,4.4.,..'•0 ,,t.v.',,A.glt ,y %-01..,,,,,......s.".•. „5 .'‘.1,0.41*am, ,i:ti.,•1t, , `, .. r 'C`n"R}„,4,4 +�''.. :.,y,Mi i„,,,.5,1+ ,Sy;�'I 'l ,e,''�',�: .;`' tiTte ' 1i '�.l ti A ' ,.fit. 'r ,"'' '"1. 41, ;-"N:11�:'t,,„��• L i• ,t t'»a••,.• ,,,•:,. y� -M i '. t• "r' r� -.r iy.;.p�e, Ju '�'"�.' �1 L.,r 3' _ 7� • � r•. •r •�/ � rtip� \'1! �,f't�,• � . w a . i` fh�'r' 1 •� � s ��,� + ti1� N,,,,„r {, s :'. � . �!` wr . s t •. �';rl F. 9 � .' ■ :t r.•�!J i,'y.•' If�: •ti `I ii' , �* v,.=1,VV� � }{^' 'r ,'44., i$, F •�.r' , �R •. ,F�'' 14 I1 +Y�' : iWr'1 i {.wv •is v Cr i••'. '�: .�`f•�, ,�.�;r �.t f I +r A.-. S` 11i r. i' Y' C' A' i ti ::.wr*y 1 , •v• •Af ..,, !, �, 1 '{+,..� to ;. . • ,Y �.,% `n,i,, . +?t�17"t�' j r 'r. ! //�� i1WM�.. !k:�, Y •) '.�r.S ..� '41 r " k r' y � y� ..... .:-� •H,�: � .Ti , t��` « . �r :��.,7:�iy,y� '"� , 'j+�+. S f' �' '�;�„ '' 't..� ` +�'�'�' 'rySr” •�R'f, `• ,y •T.*1`.4 .01'.'�rM.�� � '' # ,j.',/•l.It,'tr.�, �� ?,pee�a��,ii``' m .i '� I. � 'r �...K ,*s�:+►�11�7J:.,,N'�! � • ''!�•Rti�w f 1 � � � r Recreation Reercabon Harrington School _ Recreation Garfield St 1970 S7,000 Recreation Estabrook School 1970 54,000 Recreation Li hsA Tennis Courts 1970 ,t)DD ., Appropriated funds to purchase land at Mass 1970 58,000 Ave and Clarke St.for playground and recreation purposes,and other public purposes. Recreation Freemont St 1970 633,000 Recreation Eldred St 1971 55,000 Recreation Oxford St 1971 .500 Swim Pools,plans,spec for repairs 1971 51.000 1971 52,500 Portion of Stedman Road for school, Preliminaryand,street,&other public purposes 1971 plans Harrington Sch Rec LandS500 Walking Path and Bikeway Wiilards Woods 1972 S 1,500 Water supply Old Reservoir 197 1972 53, 00 Lincoln St Area Development ,5500 19722 52200,000 Land of Rosamond I.Ashley Savage&Alice E.Ashley acquired for school,playground, t,.] recreation,sewer and drain purposes 00 Bele Paths 1972 x30,000 Old Res Improvements 1973 52,500 Reconstruct Tennis Courts 1973 540,000 1974 $31,000 Recreation Area Lig 197$ Res'rvoi` Bath House&Fencing 535,000 Bikei Paths 1975S 535,000 1975 $5,000 Harrington School Ball field Improvements 1976 Center Pool Feasibility Study 37,000 1976 57,000 Center Pool Preliminary Plans 1977 $19 500 Bicycle Path , 1978 $22,000 Center Pool Complex 1978 5'45,040 Center Pool Complex ' 1979 3675,400 jghborhood Tot Lot 1979 515,000 • r _,%Iti:, ::"...„. .• , ,,,,,,v. ,.,*,,:.,,,,,,,,e,;,,i,',Im•,,,..4 :„••'1.-:":1ii'l.14"1"*—'-''43741.—...-51,7,41.4.-.7.A a i; .;,,,..,•0,4 ,,,,,-,.:s.r.,...,, ..,,I,,,,, ,.,,,.,„;', j,,,•!.g.. ,.„,,,,.,,...,.,,,.4:.(-1 _,..,. .1,', ,...„0 q1.1-.,.,. ,.i ..., ,F4-40:04,4-.4.:4.,' ,,,,;,,Li--.1,0=f,'•,,, ,,,'.,!..,*4 cw,;.-4,04 otgiTivird.... ‘,6,-14,_,4,. '.`„•1.,,,,,...4 PO w•*„.;.:Z,, .1_,::.1., „.:.,:,.'p if.',f4;K„,.(1t' ',',7:4'::',',;.;'',..1:0 1,;:"0,"s,,,,,,:.')d,,,'•(/':.,it..Alf,,...*1/411,.:`,.I.A:f:fe71,,Iy`...::,',..t,„,i,:1•!.'''..%;'.,....'.''i4,1",',.,;''.i'4,2.f..4,,,''`:;,.,,`,''Awl?:.,'1,'''' Recreation . Continued EsiFhberhood Plaumunds 1980 $14,650 Tennis Court 1981 , _________$41 700 " , , Replacement of Backstop at Center 5 r 1982 $3,500 , tric of All Weather Track 1982 , $70,000 Study f Divelopment of Lincolii St L 1984 , $20000 Clarke Tenflis Courts 1984 $7,500 Adams Playground 1984 $15,000 .... Center#2 Ball field Lighting 1985 73,000 , , Lincoln St Development . 1985 150„____000 .......... Tennis Court LiEllitit • 1986 15,000 Bowman Playfield 1 • 1986 , 10,000 Lincoln St Development . , 1987 • 180,000 , - Reconstruction of Center Playground . Basketball Courts 1987 27,000 Improvements Plauround Play Equipment « 1987, 10,000 Tennis Court Resurfacing 1988 90,000 thilground Equipment-Selected Playsrounds ' 1989 ' $10,000 Recreation Improvements&Equipment Center Playground , 1991 $37,000 Pine Meadows GC Irrigation System 1 1991 I $65,000 Pine Meadows GC Irrigation System 1992 $75 000 ,„..- Harrington Field Renovations 1992 550,000 Pine Meadows Muter Plan including rebuild hole#5I 1993 550,000 , 0 ,, 1,...) Center Pool Complex Rehabilitation 1993 550,000 ‘C) Playground Equipment Improvement 1993 $50,000 Pool Improvements Extended 1994 $40,000 Pine Meadows GC Improvements to certain tees,peens&cottage removal 1994 $160„_000 Pine Meadows GC Improvements 1995 i $125,000 nutotmd Improvements 19951 $50,000 Pine Meadows GC Improvements 1996i $150,000 Mostounds and Ball fields various locations 1996 S50 ....- ___,... Rehabilitation Center Pool Complex , 1997 $100,040 Pool Complex Improvements 1.- 1998 $80,000 Pine Mtdots Improvements 1999 $170,000 Athletic Field Development: Appropriation to construct athletic field and to make improvements to recreational facilities 1999. $165 000 Athletic Fields Improvements: Clarke Middle School,Diamond Middle School,and , LexingtonHS. 1999 $1,700 Rehabilitation of Center Pool COmplex.: Appropriation for improvementi,repair and to purchase equipment 2000 $100 OLL.,0 . . • i'`�wiA}�'ti�:li •may'"�,t.k .r�r'I �{+W`,•f','M}f`';1ti.i•j.i'.'���w0y�iy��y4����{i•�;�-.�'� •y 4'I :',.':4!;,ck.:07,7A.',.'44"11',*;;; � ,•i t ra 'lr '}�"• 'r•4' r• �j f� . ��j, T .•4 �, w.!r3 A• L., ..�•,. C t .•.y.y� w . , w��, r• Q��,ti""+�1�'� ` •�, � . •►" �'� y� 'f�"G!'� ,'..� � � Nr�'I•�.�i yy}}� 1��5• �� ..'T�".1���,C� }'• �•�i�,` GOIa.: . ,i..,'", ry,'. w 4,', .,• +'! i �� ''rC•Y:•t'' •+ 'f 4' 'i,�H• ,,, �' t4 ,,.: w 1 ■ 4 ••f. � �• f ,.ti'��t. •� I� �'t rK�,�•S �+R•'••+. ^■• e:,:,%7,,:„),,'-',-r►•• I,.• t .ry T•� i�t r �� 7 yr�. .�� ��I�;i. ;"�4r � � ti SY. =n 7. r� w�. ti i 1�+i, � . � ��}. . n' � ■1n!�� � • ..�4 � .• i I r 4'.4: '� I �T��, "^ �I ii'yrY� r y'•'.:Ti//..�, �; _Vf.+I�f - .r. T �•:;•! ♦t .y�. • .(4 ( 'a .i, a I,r 1Stit'Pk. P C''. •4 "' .7'PRI�+:�•rr, .' !r"'..moi.r 3. -`,• ' o a ■..w..,� �. tr• �.� f � +� .� � � � � CC',,ti uu►�,1 � r is Y,L,w,�.i� �,' ��.� /, Accessibility of the Old Reservoir PI�ICE1t, �M IVIS--4.� � Og Appropriation to make improvements Playground and Recreation Facilities 2000 525,000 Improvements -Pins Meadows improvements 2000 530,400 2001 5230,004 Playground and Recreation Facilities Improvements TOTAL RECREATION 2001 350 440 slittit I _ • • yY Apprlopriation for Lexingiop Housing . 2.Affordable Authority for Housing Study for Low& . Housing Moderate Income Families Appropriation for Plans,studies,surveys do 1972 5500 estimates to provide housing for families of low income 1974 521,00C LexHAB receives all proceeds of the sale of the Muzzev Junior High School Appropriation to purchase two units at 1983 5634,500 Morrow Crossing for housing purposes ' TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1984 5120,000 Ca loaf:: SI : e Road Land transferred to LexHAB Emerald Street 1998 Transfer Skyview 1985 Transfer Stedham 1989 Transfer Waltham 1990 Transfer Bruce 1990 Transfer Banks 1991 Transfer Woodland 1992 Transfer Phillip 1994 Transfer Grandview 1995 Transfer 3995 Transfer 3.Historic Buckman Tavern:appropriation for Preservation remodeling,reconstructing and repairs Buckman Tavern:appropriation to reimburse 1973 5120,000 Lexiniton'Historical Society for cost of replacinUpri,nkkr system. I I 1979 5884 Buckman Tavern: appropriation for repairs 1996 TOTAL HISTOTIC PRESERVATION 524044 GRAND TOTAL , The highlighted items are all appropriations related to studies and/or plans:It Is unclear as to whether or not these items would be covered under the Community Preservation Act.