May I suggest that the Motion under Article 25 quoted below would benefit, if
something similar is proposed in the future, by providing some context?
For example:
“If the Town votes to appropriate and transfer this amount, the total would be
$nn,nnn,nnn. If the Town does not favor this article, the total will remain at
$nn,nnn,nnn.”
Fred Hopengarten
6 Willarch Road
From: Lincoln [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Payne
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2025 7:10 AM
To: Karla Gravis
Cc: Lincoln Talk
Subject: Re: [LincolnTalk] Lincoln’s burdensome taxation practices
Karla G. wrote:
The situation would be entirely different if we were presented with a clear,
transparent budget each year. That budget would explicitly show how much free
cash is being set aside for future capital projects like the Community Center.
The proposed amounts for our Stabilization Fund are not only "explicitly
show[n]", but they're voted on as an individual warrant article each year (when
we're making a contribution). Here's Article 25, printed in the salmon colored
sheets distributed to every voter and available digitally for the recent TM:
image.png
Source:
https://www.lincolntown.org/DocumentCenter/View/98328/Motions---Final-032625?bidId=
It’s not FinCom’s role to pre-emptively decide, years in advance and without
public input, whether the town wants to start saving for a Community Center.
It's explicitly part of fincom's charter to consider long-term capital needs
when proposing budgets, and this is done in conjunction with the Capital
Planning Committee (capcom). In my time on fincom, we were saving for a
collection of potential future capital needs (including a future fire truck, a
looming roads project, etc., etc.). Also, if residents had declined a community
center, we had looming renovation needs for Parks & Rec, as well as Bemis.
With regard to taxing residents of the past for future benefits, I was a strong
proponent of having a reserve policy with an upper bound on reserves for
exactly that reason. Fincom approved that policy, and recommended a budget
this fiscal year that returns $900k to residents.
A transparent approach would have allowed the community to discuss whether
advance saving for discretionary projects is appropriate.
If a voter prefers to move away from a smoothed/stabilized/gradual
growth/under-budget approach, to a more volatile approach where we have "spiky"
tax jumps, over-budget situations, and (more likely) overrides, they can lobby
for that. Keep in mind: without spending cuts, the tax burden might shift
across years, but it won't fundamentally change.
The "2nd Budget Workshop" in January is a good meeting to attend; that's
typically where the recommended budget is finalized.
NOTE: I strongly suggest that you focus on specific town-level financial
concerns and (try to) separate out political issues. In my experience, some
will attempt to enlist fincom to take a particular political position based on
their own agenda, which is usually not that effective. The committee's general
practice is to pass the political questions to residents at town meeting.
For example, fincom did not vote to "recommend" the Community Center. In fact,
it explicitly said, "Ultimately, it is the decision of Town Residents as to
their ability and willingness to pay for such a project."
One we-vote-therefore-we-are resident's view,
-andy
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
--
The LincolnTalk mailing list.
To post, send mail to [email protected].
Browse the archives at https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/private/lincoln/.
Change your subscription settings at
https://pairlist9.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/lincoln.
