Town Meeting met for the fourth night of the annual session last night, but only for a short time due to technical difficulties.
At the top of the meeting, Select Board Chair Jill Hai announced the budget summit members will meet on April 27 at 7:30pm at Cary Hall to discuss the fiscal year 2027 budget.
That announcement came one week after the Board decided to postpone the vote on next year’s budget after much debate and civil outcry over Lexington Public School teachers being cut to balance the budget.
The precinct representatives then dove into Article 23, which calls for the town to buy residents new garbage barrels that are compatible with a trash removal program Lexington might adopt.
After voting on that issue, the group moved onto debating Article 31, which asks the town to adjust its bylaw language to likewise be compatible with the trash program the town is considering. After hearing from only a handful of residents, the meeting adjourned early due to technical difficulties.
Here’s what was accomplished last night:
Article 23: Appropriate for trash and recycling bins
This motion asks the town to appropriate about $1.2 million from Free Cash to buy new wheeled recycling and trash bins for all residents served by the town’s trash removal program. The new bins would be compatible with automated collection, which is when garbage is collected by a robotic ‘arm’ attached to a garbage truck instead of a worker. The town has not made the decision to move to that type of trash removal program yet, but is considering it.
Maggie Peard, Lexington’s sustainability and resilience officer, noted it has not yet been decided what size the new bins would be. She and her team will do more outreach to learn what residents prefer.
The roughly $1.2 million would cover the cost of 65-gallon bins (the largest and most expensive option). If Lexington goes with smaller bins that are less expensive, the leftover money would be returned to the town’s general fund.
If passed, the town would coordinate collection of old bins. Residents could keep their old bins to use as yard debris containers if they want.
Peard noted the town could get funding from the state’s department of environmental protection to help finance the bins.
Bob Avallone, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 8, supported the article, calling it “long overdue.”
“I see this in other communities and wonder why my town does have this,” he said, referencing both the new barrels and the automated trash collection program the town is considering. “I spend time in Florida and they have this and it works very smoothly.”
Town Meeting member, Rita Goldberg, of Precinct 2, is also in favor of buying the new trash barrels for the town, but asked that the town do more recycling education, too.
“There is still quite a bit of confusion about recyclables,” she noted. “We all remember the huge monster built in front of the Monroe Center for the Arts…which is made of entirely non-recyclable items.”
Some people urged Town Meeting members to vote no with the same argument.
“I would strongly urge the committee who’s come up with this proposal…please first focus on educating the public,” resident Olga Guttag said.
Todd Burger, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 9, said he supported “all the goals of this article” but argued it “leaves out some key implementation details.” It would be expensive for Lexington to recycle residents’ old trash barrels, for one, and the town should buy more durable (and more expensive) barrels to reduce waste and cost over time, he argued.
Others thought the town could use this money elsewhere — like, to save LPS teachers.
Town Meeting member, Dawn McKenna, of Precinct 6, noted $1.2 million is about the same amount of money that her amendment to Article 4 asks the town to take from Free Cash to save some teachers from being cut in FY27.
“Fund teachers or fund trash bins,” she said.
The motion passed with about 83 percent support.
Article 31: Regulation of refuse disposal
This motion calls for the town to update Chapter 90, Section 9, “Regulation of Refuse Disposal,” of the town bylaw. The current bylaw states the town can dispose of certain non-hazardous materials for free, though that is not true.
The new language would remove specific non-hazardous materials from a list of what can be disposed of, state the town will remove a baseline volume of waste for free, and note residents may be charged a fee if they dispose of more garbage than that baseline volume.
That predetermined volume is based on the size of the bins Lexington gets for residents and the program the Select Board implements, neither of which have been determined yet.
The town wants to change this language because the current bylaw language is incompatible with the automated waste removal program the town might adopt.
Lexington’s Commission on Disability unanimously opposed the article, commission member John Rossi explained to Town Meeting. He noted many disabled people produce more waste than non-disabled people due to their disabilities. Some disabled people need to wear diapers or have extra medical packaging to dispose of, for example. Charging those residents a fee if they dispose of more waste than the baseline volume could put financial stress on people who are already burdened by increased healthcare costs, Rossi argued.
Town Meeting took a long recess to address technical difficulties members were having with entering the online queue to ask questions or share their thoughts on Article 31. After about 20 minutes, Moderator Deborah Brown asked the Select Board to adjourn Town Meeting and relook at Article 31 on Wednesday, April 15. The Select Board approved.