Changes to the trash bylaw passed in a resident-wide referendum vote on Tuesday — not because the majority of voters checked “yes” on their ballot, but because not enough no-voters went to the polls.
The ballot question asked about changes to the bylaw to permit the town to charge residents a fee for disposing of more waste than an undetermined baseline volume.
2,977 people voted “yes,” 4,374 people voted “no,” and six ballots were left blank. That translates to about 40 percent “yes” votes and about 59 percent “no” votes.
But Town Meeting already voted in favor of the change. In order to overturn the Town Meeting vote, at least 20 percent of registered voters, or 4,715 voters, needed to vote no. No-voters were 341 votes short of meeting that threshold.
The 20 percent rule is explained in section 8 of the “Special Acts” section of the town code.
This means the Select Board will be able to come up with a “reasonable fee,” as the motion reads, for the town to impose on residents who dispose of more than a baseline volume of trash.
In total, about 31 percent of registered voters in town turned out for Tuesday’s vote. That’s down about six percentage points from the debt exclusion vote in December, which was the town’s last special vote.
Tuesday’s vote brings some resolution to a long town-wide debate over its trash program.
Article 31 was originally presented to Town Meeting by Maggie Peard, the town’s sustainability and resilience officer, on April 13. Due to some technical difficulties, the town pushed debate of the Article to April 29.
During her presentation, Peard noted passing the Article could allow the town to switch to a different waste disposal plan that could be better for the environment and save the town money. Opponents argued the town should not be given another avenue to impose a fee, the new program could cost residents more money to throw out trash, and voting on Article 31 is premature because details of the waste removal plan the town wants to adopt had not (and have not) been ironed out.
The Article passed with about 70 percent of Town Meeting support.
But opponents immediately got more than double the signatures needed for a referendum — which is what led to residents weighing in at Tuesday’s vote.
Next, the Select Board will have town staff work with the Commission on Disability, the Council on Aging, and the town human services department to discuss the logistics of Lexington’s future waste program. The Select Board will also continue community outreach to figure out what size bins to buy.
LexObserver briefly posted a version of this article stating that the “no” vote had won. Minutes later it was edited to reflect that the number of “no” votes cast did not meet the threshold to overturn the Town Meeting vote.
I will be interested to watch how our Select Board — which says it listens to the public — will implement something (trash fees) that 59.5% of voters said today they don’t want, which may add a meagre $1 million per year to the Town’s revenues while annoying thousands of households. The “beauty” of politics…
Glad I am not a politician, just a numbers person who, unlike our Select Board, understands long-range planning and predicts (in https://tinyurl.com/lexbudgetMBTA) that if our Select Board continues to focus on the wrong issues (trash, etc) instead of adding several tens of $ millions to the Town’s revenues with smarter moves than trash fees, it will bankrupt Lexington.
The Lex Observer needs new glasses as the ones they have are distorted. Turnout today was significantly above the March town election while tax override and exclusion votes are the high water mark for every town’s local election – an almost impossible turnout to achieve otherwise. It takes a national presidential election to top that.
Last time the distorted headline was about Arlington decreasing trash volumes after switching to 64 gallon barrels without reporting trash tonnage had also decreased before the switch!
Now, you miss the lede – Town meeting voted the opposite way voters did today! They failed to represent their constituents except in one precinct, 2. If the Select Board disrespects the 59% of voters against fees and imposes them, they will prove right those voting NO to stop the board from acting against the will of the people. The Select Board can still choose a middle path and enable more modern collection without imposing fees. Current trucks already have mechanical lift assists to grab the steel bar and tip the bin into the hopper. That alone is a great labor saver. Coercing residents to be more green via fees isn’t required.
What in the world?? Why even have a vote if 2/3rds of voters can vote against something and it gets passed anyways?? That’s absolutely absurd.
This entire trash topic was in no way ready to be voted on IMO. There was no proposal. I don’t want our representatives making decisions about bin sizes, “reasonable fees”, etc. I want them to put forward a clear plan, and have us vote on that. If it doesn’t pass, adjust and vote again until it does.
We pay more than enough taxes to pay for the current trash system. If anything is implemented that substantially changes the way trash is collected and what it costs without another vote, then our representatives have failed us.
I’m all for a plan to reduce trash and make people that generate more trash pay a little more. I am not ok with the single 35gal bin, special bags/stickers/whatever for “excess” trash, etc plan that it sounds like is getting pushed forward that the vast majority of residents are not in favor of.
Start with one 65 gallon bin for everyone, with the option to purchase another for <$100/year.
Make it super easy to pay the extra $3 or whatever an extra bag costs without needing to buy special bags/stickers/whatever (or, even better, give everyone a dozen or so free stickers per year so we don’t have to worry about what to do if we have a few weeks with extra trash).
Propose something like that and let’s vote on it.
Errata: Apologies to precinct 2 voters. It was only precinct 3 where the majority voted for trash fees.
Mark Kaepplein makes an excellent observation above, one that reinforces my long-held impression: Lexington’s Representational Town Meeting (RTM) is nothing other than a rubber stamp for what the Select Board, Committees and town departments desire.
It is outrageous that the percentage difference between the People’s Yes percentage (40.5) and RTM’s (70) is -29.5 points! The closest representation was for Precinct 3, at -10.3 points, but they had the lowest turnout, so this may be a statistical fluke.
To this humble citizen, our voting yesterday shows the shadiness of governing of our town, a microcosm of the corruption that Massachusetts is regaining its reputation for. Town Meeting needs to take a good hard look at making changes to its processes and engagement to cure this fundamental representational defect.
LexObserver, you could do much more service to the population of Lexington with deeper analysis, much less bias and fair sampling of people’s actual opinions.
One way to improve town meeting’s accuracy in representing constituents is to make use of non-binding ballot questions. They require just a simple passing vote by the Select board a month or so ahead of a local election. By the time town meeting convenes, they would have some data on important issues to base their votes. A side benefit of these questions is that they increase voter turnout and participation in their government by giving people more of a voice than simply picking candidates. If the trash fee question had been posed back on the March ballot, we might have been spared the expense and efforts of holding a special election with campaigns. Some Mass towns use these questions, but most, sadly, do not. Town meeting can also get a non-binding question, but it takes passing a warrant article, way in advance. Voters can get a question too, but need a petition campaign with 20% of voters signing!
Actually, town meeting this year pushed back against the proposed budget so forcefully that the town ended up reconvening its budget summit process to reallocate concerns about teacher cuts. See the Observer’s coverage on March 31, April 7, and and April 28 for details. Separately, we rejected funding for two fences at elementary schools (see coverage on April 7); later in the session, town staff came back with a more detailed justification for the fences, and town meeting relented. Far from a rubber-stamp, no detail is too minor for town meeting members to debate. 🙂
As to the representativeness of town meeting, you might enjoy the discussion in the comments on Lana Panasyuk’s December 10, 2025 letter to the Observer. Here’s the link: https://lexobserver.org/2025/12/10/letter-to-the-editor-taxation-without-representation/#comment-80782
(And in retrospect, it is interesting to see the comments made just 6 months ago by people suggesting that turnout for the high school vote was too low!)
The Select Board should treat this outcome as a protest, not a mandate. Residents have serious concerns about added fees, limits, exemptions, costs, and service levels. Those concerns should not be brushed aside simply because the vote just missed the high bar required to overturn TM. The new policy should address citizen concerns directly.
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
The rule on what it takes to nulify a town meeting vote is here:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVII/Chapter43A/Section10
Except our polls were open at 7 AM, not 2 PM.
“The questions so submitted shall be determined by a majority vote of the registered voters of the town voting thereon, but no action of the representative town meeting shall be reversed unless at least twenty per cent of the registered voters shall so vote.”
Non-binding ballot questions are covered here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter53/Section18A
Rather than Section 10, our town has its own law for the referendum process: https://ecode360.com/attachment/331533/LE1818-A201.pdf (PDF page 12). The differences between those two laws are quite minor though, and the 20% No requirement is present in both.
As for non-binding questions, the process exists, yes, and the threshold to just ask the select board to put one on the ballot is quite low. But the process isn’t used very often because it’s not very helpful for something like this. It would only be a “survey” of people who vote in general elections, who are not the same group as those who vote in special elections (which you can infer from the variance in turnout), and it only tells you what people think before there has been any campaigning. “Do you think we should do [thing nobody has ever heard of]?” “Uh, maybe? I dunno???” They’re also highly sensitive to the wording of the question, like any survey. Finally, they run the risk of inducing voter fatigue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_fatigue
A group did in fact conduct a survey on this: https://www.lexingtonma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12057/Tufts-Waste-Reduction-Select-Board-Presentation-5624?bidId= (page 13). Of course, it was a (large) self-selected sample, but so is an election!
I’m writing as a town Meeting member from Precinct 2 who proudly voted “yes” on Article 31 and as a resident who proudly voted “yes” on the referendum.
The rules for overturning a vote by town meeting were deliberately set with a high bar. That’s why it’s not just a simple majority. You have to have a majority of the votes and at least 20% of registered voters voting your way. This was set in the 1929 representative town meet act for Lexington and in state law. My interpretation of this vote is, the “no” campaign did not layout a compelling enough case to motivate 20% of voters to turn out and vote.
In my opinion, the claim that town meeting needed a fully formed plan was just a red herring put forth by people who would have voted “no” in any event. You can’t have a fully formed plan until you know if fees are on the table. However, one component of the plan is already set — the first barrel of trash will always be picked up without a fee being charged. The intention all along was that once the vote on Article 31 was complete — no matter the result — there would be a robust period of community outreach and that the resulting feedback from the community would be the basis for the Select Board’s plan. By the way, a bin size has not been selected. There are three bin sizes available — 35 gallons, 48 gallons, and 64 gallons. The town may offer two bin sizes for residents. The size(s) the town chooses will come after the community outreach.
I don’t always agree with Select Board recommendations, but for the most part I do. If a resident doesn’t trust the Select Board to act in the best interest of the community, to set fees that are least burdensome (not most burdensome), to protect the privacy and dignity of residents seeking relief, and to always pick up the first barrel without a fee being assessed, there is nothing that I or any other “yes” voter can do about that.
I beg you sir, explain the almost 30 point difference between the Yes votes of the so-called Representational Town Meeting (RTM) and the Yes votes of the thousands of residents who showed up to vote in the special election. RTM is supposed to represent the will of the people. When the body diverges this much on a matter of confiscation, we are back to an original sin that gave birth to the USA: TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!
David,
I would be happy to talk about the difference in the vote total between “yes” and “no”. Thank you so much for asking.
I also have a question for you. Are you questioning that the “no” campaign failed to get to the 20% of registered voters threshold?
I am comfortable expressing the opinion that the information in Maggie Peard’s presentation to Town Meeting and on the Keep a Lid on Trash Spending website can be sourced back to information available from the town and on the the mass.gov website. I am also comfortable stating the opinion that the discrepancy can be attributed in part to lack of understanding of the issue by “typical” residents that can be sourced back to information provided by the “no” campaign.
Some residents thought fees would be charged starting with the first barrel of trash, not the second. During the debate, Brian Kelley stated that the fees would affect 100% of Lexington residents. That may be Brian’s opinion, but it has no basis in fact. It certainly doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when you look at Maggie Peard’s presentation.
Another example is the one you included, that this is a tax. First, this is not even supported by the “no” campaign’s lawn signs. The message is “no fees”, not “no taxes”. The town manager and town finance director provided an explanation of why this is a fee, not a tax. The 1984 court case (Emerson College v. Boston) sets up a three-prong test that can be used to determine that the proposed trash fees are in fact fees, not taxes: (1) Specific (not general) benefit – the charge and service directly benefit the payer; (2) Cost based – the aggregate fees cannot exceed the cost of the service; (3) Voluntary – payers can opt out; in our case, either find a way to stay in one can or contract privately.
For additional information about why this is not a tax, click the link at the end. This FAQ addresses frequently asked questions concerning the authority of municipal boards and officials to set fees and charges for permits, licenses, or certificates they issue and any services they provide and, if those fees and charges are currently established by state statute, to set them above the statutory level. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/ask-dls-fees-and-charges.
Avram, thank you for your reply. As a Precinct 2 constituent, I’d appreciate the opportunity to meet you in person for some civil discourse, as I’d still like to explore the problem with RTM being so far off the will of the people on this matter. You can find me on LinkedIn (David A Moschella) for my contact information.
You’re attitude fully exposes the problem.
I was relieved that the YES vote prevailed. I feel grateful that our town picks up trash at all (my sister in Winchester, for instance, needs to take hers to the landfill) and that putting out one large barrel is free. Given the conditions in which most people in the world live, I am puzzled by the outrage engendered by potential trash fees in this privileged town, especially since there will be provisions for people with circumstances that require them to dispose of more than 1 barrel of trash.
This is what Actual Tyranny looks like , when the “representative” government ignores the will of its constituents.
M.A.,
I presented accurate, factual information. Where in my “attitude” did I expose a problem? Please elaborate.
I too recall the Boston Trash Party, when our colonial forebears dumped their rubbish into the harbor in protest of the King’s depredations, only to realize that garbage and navigable waters don’t mix too well. “Give me curbside or give me death!” went Patrick Henry’s stirring cry.
The tree of liberty must be occasionally watered with the sewer runoff of patriots and tyrants.
It would be tyranny if the no campaign had gotten 20% of registered voters to vote their way and the town went ahead with the fees anyway. The bylaw and state law are clear. The town is following the law. You support the rule of law, don’t you M.A.?
I support representative government, which the town meeting is not when it acts with entitled arrogance, not only ignoring the will of the people but actually campaigning against them!
“Physician, heal thyself”
Unfortunately, you have an incorrect understanding of the level of resident engagement in the run-up to town meeting.
Every house in Lexington receives a copy of the warrant well in advance of town meeting, and every resident is free to comment on articles they support or don’t support. Town meeting members may get a few comments, but generally the yes/no recommendations on any particular article are about equal. In any event, the number of letters we receive are not enough to call it representative of the will of the residents.
I live in Precinct 2, in Liberty Heights. We have a neighborhood Google Group. As soon as the warrant is available I post a message with links to the warrant and other pertinent information about the upcoming town meeting, with the request that people send questions and comments to the Precinct 2 town meeting members. For Article 31 I received one comment back, and that was a “yes”.
A few years back, town meeting had to vote on the purchase of the Upper Vinebrook property (I think that’s what its was called). A Yes vote would allocate funds to purchase the property from the owner for preservation, a No vote and the owner would sell the property to a developer. I was planning on voting No because I felt the town would benefit from the new housing, including anticipated affordable housing. That was the one instance where I received more than one or two comments from my neighbors in Liberty Heights (I received seven). They were all in favor of preservation, so I changed my vote.
I started this with “unfortunately”. That’s because I think it would be great if even 50 engaged residents provided comments in advance of town meeting, but that doesn’t happen. Left to my own devices, I will vote the way I think is in the best interest of Lexington.
But that’s always the problem with representative government. But when the town meeting members saw the reaction of the governed, and the collecting of nearly double the amount of signatures required for a referendum in a very short time, why did the town meeting members double down and actually fight against the obvious will of the people?
MA, my interpretation of your last comment is, if your position on an issue appears to be a “lost cause” you are not allowed to participate in the democratic process. I don’t know about you, but to me that’s fascism, not democracy. It’s a good thing the Lexington residents who faced the British soldiers on the Battle Green 250 years ago didn’t hold your opinion, we wouldn’t be here today having this conversation.
Keep A Lid On Trash Spending was not a town meeting initiative, it was organized by residents who felt strongly about the issue. (And yes, — some — of those residents were town meeting members.) There was no “doubling down”, there was exercising first amendment rights and participating in the democratic process. Is that what you are objecting to?
You really should take the time to learn more about town government and democracy in Lexington. I recommend taking Civic Academy the next time it’s offered.
Avram with all due respect I don’t appreciate the insults, and I don’t need you to explain this to me, I understand it very clearly. This was an Epic Fail by Town meeting ✅
Sorry, MA, you don’t get to play the aggrieved commenter card over some perceived insult you read into my last comment. Not when you continuously insult the service and integrity of town meeting members who voted “yes” on Article 31 — residents who volunteer their time for no other reason than to give something back to the town that gives so much to us.