===PAGE 1===
Lunenburg Finance Committee 
Meeting Minutes 
Thursday, April 14, 2022 
 
Location: In-person at Lunenburg Town Hall and broadcast on Zoom 
 
Present: Chairperson Peter Beardmore, Jay Simeone, Dave Passios, Tom Gray, Evan Watters (arrived 
late), Tom Balish (arrived late) 
 
Guests: Town Manager Heather Lemieux 
1. Call to Order 
Mr. Beardmore called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read a statement 
concerning the Open Meeting Law, and how all public meetings are legally being held 
remotely. 
This meeting was recorded and is viewable on YouTube at https://youtu.be/ktOKlrZIyCE 
2. Pledge of Allegiance 
 
3. Announcements: Mr. Beardmore informed the committee that the Association of Town Finance 
Committees is holding a seminar regarding ARPA funding on April 30, 2022 
 
4. Public Comment: Lunenburg resident Dave Rodgers commented on the capital planning process 
as the discussion took place. Mr. Rodgers pointed out that town government is the purest form 
of democracy, and that the current $2.1 million capital plan process of voting on the plan, in its 
entirety, does not follow that.  
 
5. Chair Report: Mr. Beardmore prefers to have more committee members present before voting 
on previously deferred warrant articles. 
 
6. Town Manager/Finance Director Report: Ms. Lemieux met with Congresswoman Lori Trahan’s 
office virtually to talk about the Community Funding Project Report. The town has two eligible 
projects: the Flat Hill Drainage project, and the School St. project. Also the Fire Chief was 
awarded a grant for $2,116 for an Automated External Defibrillator that will replace an obsolete 
unit in one of the trucks, and the Police Chief was awarded a $7,900 grant for exercise 
equipment at the police station funded by MIIA. 
 
7. Discussion on Capital Plan Process and Procedures (Role of Finance Committee): Mr. 
Beardmore recalled the committee’s past discussions on a potential amendment to the capital 
plan. Mr. Beardmore read an email exchange on the roles of the Town Manager, Capital 
Planning Committee, and the Finance Committee on the town’s capital plan. (See appendix) 
Town Counsel’s email explained that amending the capital plan is allowable, but complicated. 
Mr. Beardmore said he both agreed and disagreed with town counsel’s response to his question, 
and wanted to open the discussion to committee members before he sent his response. Mr. 
Passios pointed out that the town’s bylaws and Mass. General Law are conflicting, and maybe 
should be adjusted. Mr. Passios opined that the committee should continue voting on the whole 
===PAGE 2===
dollar amount in the capital plan, that they can make a suggestion to reduce the amount, but 
cannot dictate how to spend the amount, or increase that amount, which is how the bylaw is 
written. Mr. Passios also pointed out that the town has been using the current process for over 
20 years. Mr. Gray commented that he agrees with the notion that the committee can reduce 
the whole dollar amount of the capital plan, and that he trusts town counsel’s opinion. Mr. 
Simeone pointed out that the situation with the capital plan is similar to that of the school 
committee’s budget, and that if there are changes to be made, suggestions must be made early 
in the budget forming process. Mr. Simeone added that Capital Planning Committee meetings 
could be better advertised. Mr. Beardmore added that there are some items in the capital plan 
that are absolutely needed, and some that are discretionary, and that it is unfair to voters to 
present the plan as all or nothing. The present committee members agreed to invite town 
counsel to a future meeting to further discuss the matter.    
 
8. Public Hearing on FY23 Budget, Capital Plan, and all financially relevant Annual Town Meeting 
Articles: Mr. Beardmore opened the hearing and informed the committee that six articles have 
so far been deferred to Annual Town Meeting. Ms. Lemieux was invited to update the 
committee on the deferred articles. (Mr. Watters joined the meeting in person.) 
Article 4: FY22 budget adjustment. Ms. Lemieux forwarded information regarding snow 
and ice, and the collective bargaining agreement involving Article 5 to the committee. 
Article 6: Capital Improvement Plan. Still need more information on the HVAC at the 
Primary School. Ms. Lemieux suggested the committee go forward with recommending 
approval of the article as the money is still needed for the initial project, regardless of 
peer review. Otherwise, the project could be delayed.  
Mr. Beardmore suggested inviting newly hired DPW Director to a meeting to talk about 
the utility tractor mower. Ms. Lemieux opined it would be too soon for that.  
Article 7: Facilities Director: Mr. Beardmore informed the committee that there is a 
document on the town website that describes the proposed position. Mr. Passios 
commented that he does support the position, but would also support “more boots on 
the ground,” to get daily tasks done. Mr. Passios also opined that the part-time 
Recreation Director should remain under the direction of DPW instead of the new 
department.  Mr. Beardmore asked when the budget for the new department would 
separate from the DPW.  Ms. Lemieux replied that when the position is filled, the 
department will get its own departmental budget.  
Article 22: Salary Administration Plan. Committee members received an updated plan 
with marked changes, and had no comments. 
Article 23: 300th Anniversary Committee. $5,000 to establish the committee has been 
proposed. Committee members had no comment. 
Article 24: Bylaw Review Committee. Mr. Beardmore commented that most changes 
regard changing “Board of Selectmen” to “Select Board.” Mr. Passios said he is thinking 
of abstaining because there was a lot less interaction with the public and individual 
boards that are covered under the bylaws. 
 
(Mr. Balish joined the meeting in person.) 
 
===PAGE 3===
Public Hearing Public Comment: Mr. Rodgers expressed his frustration about the 
committee not having pertinent information on articles to be heard at Annual Town 
Meeting, which is three weeks away. Namely the articles on the facilities director and 
funding the Primary School HVAC on the capital plan, are confusing and need to be 
vetted.  Mr. Beardmore acknowledged and agreed with Mr. Rodger’s frustration, and 
explained that information on the Primary School only was discovered because Mr. 
Passios asked why the cost of the project decreased in the past year, and did not receive 
an answer. Mr. Balish also empathized with Mr. Rodger’s frustration, but added that 
everyone on town boards and committees are volunteers, and working hard to do what 
they think is best for the town. Mr. Rodgers emphasized that he did not intend to 
criticize the town’s volunteers, but did wish to express his frustration with the capital 
planning process. 
 
Mr. Passios motioned to close the public hearing, Mr. Watters seconded. On vote, 
motion carried unanimously. 
 
 
9. Discuss and Vote/Re-vote on Recommendations on Annual Town Meeting Articles: Mr. 
Beardmore commented that the warrant has been printed, and voting on the currently deferred 
articles is not necessary. Mr. Passios pointed out that if any deferred articles in the consent 
calendar, they’d have to be pulled out. Mr. Beardmore acknowledged Mr. Passios comment, and 
determined that no deferred articles were included in the consent calendar. The committee 
agreed to table the topic. 
 
10. Annual Town Meeting Consent Calendar: Ms. Lemieux explained the time-saving concept of the 
consent calendar. Mr. Beardmore brought up that articles 9 and 10 have to do with stabilization 
funds, and if anything gets cut from the omnibus budget, it may be better for those monies to 
go into a stabilization fund. Therefore, those articles would need to be reopened. Mr. 
Beardmore suggested removing the two articles from the consent calendar to avoid the need to 
reopen an article during Annual Town Meeting. The committee decided to table the topic until 
discussed with the Town Moderator. 
 
11. Minutes The committee will vote on meeting minutes at their next meeting.  
 
12. Committee Reports Committee members updated each other on their respective liaison 
assignments. 
 
13. Public Comment Mr. Rodgers asked about property on West St and Leominster Rd., and added 
that he has great trepidations on the financial future for everybody, and asked the committee to 
do an analysis on when they would think a need for an override would be brought up, and 
warned the committee to be ready.  
 
14. Items for Future Meetings Re-appointment forms. Mr. Passios informed the committee that he 
would not be seeking reappointment.  
===PAGE 4===
 
15. Next Meetings April 28, ATM May 7, May 12. 
 
16. Adjourn At 8:53 p.m. Mr. Passios motioned to adjourn, Mr. Watters seconded. On vote, motion 
carried unanimously. 
 
Appendix 
Hi Heather, 
I'd like to formally request an opinion from Town Counsel as to the role of the Finance Committee 
and Town Meeting with respect to capital plan articles. 
At Annual Town Meeting in June of 2020, I made a motion to amend the proposed capital plan by 
striking several items. I believe the motion was seconded by Mr. Passios. I don't recall any 
interjection from Town Counsel. The proposed amendment was ultimately defeated and the capital 
plan passed as proposed. 
During this year's budget season, Mr. Passios has contended (I'm paraphrasing) that it is not the 
Finance Committee's role to scrutinize specific items in the capital plan, but merely to look at the 
article on the whole. I completely disagree. 
During last week's Finance Committee Meeting, Mr. Passios outlined his intent to inquire of new 
guidance from Town Counsel. Apparently inspired by previous conversations or statements involving 
Town Counsel, Mr. Passios (again, I'm paraphrasing) inferred that the Finance Committee may not 
be empowered to propose amendments to specific lines in the capital plan. I think this is 
preposterous, and runs counter to Town Meeting's power to appropriate funds as it sees fit, and for 
the Finance Committee to advise Town Meeting. 
The Finance Committee, or individual members, may be on a path to propose amendments to your 
proposed capital plan. These matters will likely be discussed at public meetings over the next few 
weeks. Therefore I think that it is imperative that we receive advice from Town Counsel as soon as 
possible. 
Thank you, 
Peter Beardmore 
Heather: 
I am in receipt of your e-mail below.  I am providing advice and an opinion regarding the same, at your 
request. 
The roles of the Capital Planning Committee, the Finance Committee and the Town Manager, with respect to 
the Town’s capital plan and, specifically, the annual Town Meeting article funding the same, are generally 
defined by Town Charter, state statute and, to a degree, the Town’s Bylaws.  For example, Section 6-7 of the 
Charter, entitled “Capital Improvements Program,” empowers the Town Manager to “submit a capital 
improvement program to the select board and the finance committee” annually, which program “shall be 
based on material prepared by the capital planning committee established by by-law…”  Article VI, Sections 
12-17 and 12-18, of the Bylaws establish said Capital Planning Committee, and vest it with authority to 
“establish and update a comprehensive capital plan,” with its materials once again “provide[d]… to the Town 
Manager” to allow him or her to satisfy the requirements of Section 6-7 of the Charter, just quoted. 
The Finance Committee is established by Section 2-3 of the Charter and given “the primary responsibility to 
report to town meeting” not only on the budget, but on “all warrant articles having a fiscal impact on the 
town” which, I would say, includes the funding of capital expenditures.  (The Charter also vests the Finance 
Committee with “all other powers conferred on finance committees by the General Laws, which include, per 
===PAGE 5===
G.L. c. 39, § 16, “consider[ing] any or all municipal questions for the purpose of making reports or 
recommendations to the town…”) 
Regarding the specific issue(s) referenced in the e-mail below – namely, the Finance Committee scrutinizing 
specific items, e.g. proposed expenditures, within the capital plan, as well as the ability of the Finance 
Committee (or any other qualified voter) to seek to amend the capital plan at Town Meeting – I offer the 
following guidance: 
First, the Finance Committee is certainly free to “scrutinize specific items in the capital plan,” if it so 
chooses.  Of course, creating the plan, in the first instance, is the role of the Capital Planning 
Committee.  But reviewing it is absolutely within the purview of the Finance Committee, which, by Charter 
and Bylaw, is one of two intended recipients of the capital plan (the other being the Town Manager).  And, as 
stated above, the Finance Committee has “the primary responsibility” to report on Town Meeting warrant 
articles with fiscal impact.  
Second, having stated the above, I will further say that amending the capital plan at Town Meeting, e.g. on the 
floor, whether by the Finance Committee or by another, if and to the extent permissible, can be a 
complicated undertaking, both procedurally and substantively.   
For any amendment to a warrant article to be proper, it must generally be within the scope of the article as 
presented in the warrant (so as to avoid insufficiency of notice and running afoul of due 
process).  Lunenburg’s capital plan is typically presented to Town Meeting in the following manner:  “To see 
if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, borrow or transfer from available funds a sum of money for 
the FY _____ Capital Plan, as appearing in the Capital Planning Committee Report; or take any other action 
relative thereto.”  Additionally, under Section 2-3 of the Charter, the Finance Committee is required to “hold 
1 or more public hearings to permit public discussion on the subject matter of the articles contained in the 
warrant.”  An amendment to increase the funding of the capital plan, if intended to fund items not referenced 
in said plan, or on which public hearing(s) were held, could be procedurally deficient. 
Regarding substance, and based partly on the language of the warrant article and partly on Lunenburg’s 
tradition (with respect to other financial articles as well, e.g. the omnibus budget), it would be improper, in 
my opinion, for a floor amendment to dictate the use of funds for capital projects.  Thus, while an 
amendment could, for example, reduce the overall funding for the capital plan, it cannot bind the Committee 
or Town Manager with respect to the designated uses of those funds. 
Although I don’t recall, specifically, stating to Mr. Passios that “the Finance Committee may not be 
empowered to propose amendments to specific lines in the capital plan,” if I did make such a comment, I 
suspect that it was made in the context of the explanation above.   
I do remember that the 2020 Annual Town Meeting, also referenced below, was unusual, inasmuch as it was 
delayed and conducted in the midst of a pandemic; and, consequently, I believe, the capital plan referenced in 
the warrant was reduced in scope by providing sufficient funding for some items while delaying the 
appropriation of funds for others.  (I have a further recollection, albeit faint, of an effort to further postpone 
some funding given the uncertainty of COVID-19 fiscal impacts; and to instead move these monies into a 
stabilization fund.  I remember opining that postponing the funding was within the scope; moving the 
monies into a stabilization fund was not.) 
I hope that is helpful to you. 
Adam J. Costa 
===PAGE 6===
Mead, Talerman & Costa, LLC 
30 Green Street · Newburyport, Massachusetts · 01950