Before Town Meeting met for the fourth session of its annual meeting on Monday, approximately 100 of Lexington Educational Association’s Unit C employees and their supporters rallied in the rain outside Cary Hall to protest their wages. The group, made up of instructional aides and other paraprofessionals, has been negotiating for higher pay, among other improvements, for nearly a year.
Town Meeting also met for its fifth session on Wednesday.
Here is a breakdown of every motion discussed this week:
Article 4 — FY26 town budget
The motion under Article 4, which itemizes the budgets requested by the town manager and the superintendents of LPS and Minuteman High School, passed with approximately 96 percent support.
Julie Hackett, superintendent of Lexington Public Schools, asked the town to approve a $146 million budget for FY26, which is almost a 4 percent increase from FY25. She said the schools need a boost in funding because students’ needs are rising and contracts, goods, and services are more expensive. LPS administration anticipates not having any leftover funds from prior years for the FY26 budget, she said.
Among other cost-saving measures, Hackett said the schools are decreasing spending on professional development, eliminating two full-time administrative positions, and consolidating elementary and middle school classrooms, which could alleviate 12 full-time positions.
Several Unit C employees and their supporters voiced frustrations with LPS for not meeting their plea for higher pay during Monday night’s session. In addition to a livable wage, Unit C employees, who make approximately $20 to $40 per hour, are seeking better professional development and more respect in their new contracts. Hackett argued Unit C’s wage increases won’t be met because they may not be sustainable. “We’re trying to do this responsibly,” she said.
“We value our Unit C employees, we do have competitive rates, other districts around us say, ‘we cannot compete with Lexington’,” Hackett said. “That is not to say we cannot do more.”
But Unit C employees held strong that they deserve more.
“We cannot continue to pay our people so little and expect more,” said Robin Strizhak, president of the Lexington Education Association. “We’re tired of being told how appreciated we are. Actions speak louder than words.”
“The needs of your children are increasing and some things are worth spending money on. We are one of them,” John Goodwin, a Unit C employee at Jonas Clarke Middle School, said.
Alex Tsouvalas, a Town Meeting member representing Precinct 5, said he wouldn’t vote in support of Hackett’s budget based on the testimonies Unit C employees shared.
“I had every intention of voting yes for this budget…but hearing these compelling speeches from the public and the town employees, I want to ask us about our values,” he said. “We should be negotiating in good faith to solve this issue with our staff, we talk about affordable housing in town…but our staff can’t even afford to live here.”
Tsouvalas asked Hackett to “work with these unions and these employees so we can achieve some success for their ability to stay and serve our children.”
Under the same article, Town Meeting passed operating budgets presented by Heidi Driscoll, the superintendent of Minuteman High School, and Steve Bartha, the town manager.
Bartha asked for a FY26 budget of approximately $51 million for town departments. That’s a 3.5 percent increase from FY25. Some of the larger expenses the town will need to cover with the budget increases are the composting program, Lexpress, and LexMedia. The town will also spend more due to insurance premiums, pensions costs, and solid waste removal costs increasing, among other items.
Bartha asked for a budget of approximately $687 million for capital projects, approximately $654 million of which will go toward building the new Lexington High School.
Driscoll asked Town Meeting for approximately $32 million for Minuteman High’s FY26 budget, which is about a 2 percent increase from FY25.
Article 16e — Demolishing the central administration building
The motion under this article asks the town to appropriate approximately $3.5 million to demolish the old Harrington School at 146 Maple St., which currently houses LPS’s administration offices. The motion passed with 74 percent support.
Some Town Meeting members argued Lexington should keep the building in case the incoming multifamily housing will add to LPS enrollment so much that it will need another school.
“We don’t know what the effects of the [MBTA communities Act] housing could be…we could get 7,000 students,” Dawn McKenna, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 6, said. “There is no harm in just waiting until we have more information, until we figure out if the debt exclusion even passes, which there are concerns about in the community.”
But Mike Cronin, the town’s director of facilities, noted this building needs many expensive repairs.
Cronin said it would cost approximately $20 million to replace the roof, windows, and update the HVAC. And there is asbestos waterproofing material in the building that would need to be strategically removed.
The building also wouldn’t meet the structural code nor would it be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act if it were to be used as a school again, he said. It also only has 20 classrooms, which is smaller than any of LPS’s current schools.
Meg Muckenhoupt, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 1, urged Town Meeting to pass the motion because Lexington can’t predict whether it will need another school down the line.
“This school is not an architectural masterpiece,” she argued. “We don’t know what size school we’re going to need in the future if we need a new school at all…we know that this school has asbestos in it.”
Cronin’s presentation suggests the building could be replaced with two rectangular fields, which Muckenhoupt noted the town would need if the debt exclusion passes in December.
Article 28 — Adjusting language regarding lithium-ion batteries
The motion under Article 28, which asks the town to form a committee to discuss language used to describe lithium-ion batteries, failed with approximately 42 percent support.
While presenting the Article to Town Meeting, Avram Baskin, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 2, argued the batteries are not as “green” or “clean” as they are marketed to be, so the town should stop using that language when referring to the batteries.
“My hope is that we will keep using this technology but that we stop greenwashing it,” Baskin’s presentation states.
Barbara Katzenberg, a Town Meeting representative from Precinct 2, argued this motion is a plea to be accurate and precise, which is a good thing.
“I don’t think this is a big ask,” she said. “A reminder to try to be good at this is really worthwhile.”
But other Town Meeting members did not agree. Alex Tsouvalas, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 5, worried that passing this motion is not the best message to send at a time when the federal government is “undermining science” and the president has chanted “drill baby drill,” referencing his approval of drilling for oil.
“This motion is well meaning but I strongly urge a no vote on Article 28, it’s the wrong message we should be sending,” he argued.
Article 12k — Solar over the Lincoln Park parking lot
The motion under this article asks the town for $375,000 to hire professionals to design and engineer solar canopies over the parking lot at Lincoln Park. It passed with approximately 61 percent support.
Many Town Meeting members were worried this motion would not solve the issue of there not being enough parking at Lincoln Park. A few Town Meeting members asked about adding other lots to the area or paths to parking lots at satellite schools. Residents also argued the project is too expensive.
“It seems like a nice to have, not a need to have,” Kenneth Shine, a Town Meeting member from Precinct 2, said. “I’m concerned about the tax burden on this town.”
Town Meeting passed several other motions — under Articles: 5, 7, 9, 10h, 12b, 12h, 12i, 12j, and 16f — that called for the town to appropriate money to put toward various projects. The group approved improving Harrington Athletic Fields by installing sand-based high-performance grass, renovating the nurse’s bathroom at Estabrook Elementary School so it can serve students with significant disabilities, surveying Burlington Street and North Street to see if sidewalks can be built on those roads, buying a new fire pump truck, and more.
Town Meeting will convene again on Monday, April 14, at 7:30pm at Cary Hall for its sixth session.
I believe the headline of this story, “LPS superintendent’s operation budget passed during Town Meeting’s fourth session, despite Unit C employees’ plea for higher wages,” is misleading. It implies that Town Meeting rejected the legitimate request made by Unit C employees of the Lexington Public Schools—who include teachers and aides for Special Needs students—for a pay increase that would allow them to earn a living wage.
Each year, the operating budget for Lexington is the largest fiscal item considered at Town Meeting. This budget is meticulously developed over 11 months prior to the Annual Town Meeting through numerous open meetings where all aspects of the budget—including expenses for running Lexington Public Schools and municipal operations—are reviewed and discussed in detail.
At Wednesday’s meeting, Unit C employees used their platform effectively to highlight the financial challenges they face. Their statements served as a powerful reminder to Town Meeting members of the critical role these educators and support staff play in maintaining Lexington’s reputation as an excellent town for educating Special Needs students. While the operating budget was ultimately approved without any movement toward improved wages for Unit C employees, their voices were heard, and I am hopeful that we will see progress in addressing their income concerns in future Town Meetings.
These dedicated professionals deserve fair compensation for their invaluable contributions to our community and schools.
Thank you Harry, well said, however we cannot simply assume that their voices are truly heard until they have a contract with a decent, living wage. But I think you and many others do wish to see that happen.
P.S. I forgot to add this description of what Unit C School Department employees do for Lexington. Here is that description: https://tinyurl.com/hf-tm-unit
Lexington is full of contradictions.
I suspect that the LEA Unit C employees’ annual pay would not allow them to snag an “affordable housing unit” being planned/constructed under the MBTA Communities ACT.
But Lexington will spend millions to demolish buildings that could be re-purposed for really affordable housing- not the exclusionary “affordable” units that cater to those who can make $100,000.00. And for what? Landscaped playing fields that will use toxic materials.