On June 16, Lexington voters decide the fate of Article 31. The ballot is confusing and voters need to know the following:
YES = Approve the April bylaw change and allow trash fees.
NO = Reject the bylaw change and no new trash fees.
We are voting No.
Let us be clear about what this is not. It is not a vote against recycling, composting, or reducing waste — we want all of that. Disposal costs are real and rising, and no one thinks trash is free.
Our objection is to sequence. Article 31 gives the Select Board authority to charge fees for trash above a “baseline” — before there is a program to judge. No final cart size. No fee schedule. No overflow price. No definition of where the free baseline ends and the charge begins. The town’s own materials describe the design as still under development.
That is backwards.
You approve a plan, then turn on the fee.
You don’t flip the switch and wait to find out what you flipped on.
June 16 is the last say voters get. Once the bylaw changes, the fees and the baseline volume are set by Select Board regulation — not by Town Meeting, not by another vote. This vote is the checkpoint. After this, residents react to decisions instead of approving them. We will be stuck with whatever the new program and fees become.
It also carries an equity problem the town never answered. Lexington’s own Commission on Disability voted unanimously against it. Residents who cannot reduce waste — for medical needs, caregiving, or large households — would pay for trash they cannot avoid. Article 31offers no specific exemptions and no hardship relief beyond a statement saying this issued is being “explored”. From the town website:
Q: What if I cannot afford the new trash fees?
A: The Town is exploring a financial hardship program for those who qualify for other financial assistance programs.
What about residents who are not enrolled in assistance programs but are still struggling financially? That remains an open question. Many households face significant expenses—such as medical costs, caregiving responsibilities, or fixed retirement incomes—that may not qualify them for existing assistance programs but can still make additional fees difficult to absorb.
We would gladly support a fair, well-designed program with real protections built in. This is not that one. It is charge first, details later.
Vote NO on Article 31. Send it back. Ask the town to bring us an actual plan.
Keith D. Patch
Linda R. Patch
Select Board Members have discussed at great length Article 31 and their expectations and requirements for approving an updated trash disposal policy. Video of the discussion is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxzu7x7BPd8
Actually, town meeting could change the bylaw back, or change it further, at any time with a simple majority vote. Unlike in some systems where the executive holds a veto power over legislation, or controls what legislation can be brought to the floor, our local system allows a mere 10 citizens to add items to the agenda (and with 200 signatures, you can have a special town meeting for it whenever you want!).
Respectfully, this letter confuses the roll of Town Meeting and that of our elected Select Board. Town Meeting’s job is to amend by-laws and approve appropriations. In this case, that meant amending the by-law to allow for overage fees as part of a modernization program. It’s the Select Board’s role to negotiate contracts, set fees (which must be based on costs), and set up and adjust exemptions. Should we have a new Referendum every time fees are adjusted? Or every time accommodations and exemptions are adjusted? We need to trust our elected officials to manage the details of the contracts and the program. That’s what we elect them for.