On Monday Lexington residents voted in favor of paying to build the new Lexington High School, as it is currently designed, through increased property taxes.
Preliminary results show the vote passed with 5,283 “yes” votes, or about 62 percent support, and 3,276 “no” votes.
“We all feel relieved,” Taylor Singh, chair of the “Yes for Lexington” campaign, a group of almost 1,000 resident who have been campaigning to get residents to vote ‘yes’ on Monday’s debt exclusion vote. “Our campaign left it all out on the dance floor.”
One future LHS student shared his excitement with the Observer.
“I’m very excited to be able to go to a new facility and to be able to experience all the great new things there,” Alex Jacotin, a grade-seven student at Jonas Clarke Middle School, said. “I’m excited about the courtyard and that it will be accessible for everyone.”
The question on the ballot specifically asked residents if the town can be exempt from the provisions of Proposition Two and One-Half (a state law enacted in 1980 that limits how much a municipality can raise its tax levy through real and property taxes) the amount required to pay for the bonds issued in order to pay for the costs of designing and constructing a new Lexington High School.
It is anticipated that residents will cover about $533 million of the $659.7 million total cost of the project. The delta will be covered by state and federal grants.
Thirty-seven percent of registered voters in town turned out to vote on Monday. That is up 9 percentage points from the last school-related debt exclusion vote in December 2017. That year, 28 percent of registered voters in Lexington cast ballots on whether or not to increase the tax levy to pay for designing and constructing the new Maria Hastings Elementary School. That debt exclusion vote passed with about 63 percent support.
Voter turn out is also up compared to Lexington’s last local election, which took place this past spring. For that election in March, about 27 percent of voters cast ballots.
While Monday’s debt exclusion vote has been a long-discussed deadline among voters and planners, it’s only the beginning of the high school building project.
The project team’s next step is to finish the design of the school. In March 2026, the team will come up with a new cost estimate, referred to as the “Design Development” estimate, or DD estimate, according to a recent project timeline. That estimate will be a more refined cost estimate than the schematic design cost estimate the team drew up at the end of the summer this year.
“In three and a half years, our students will walk safely through modern hallways, gather in a cafeteria with room to connect and belong, and learn in spaces designed for collaboration and discovery. No more faulty HVAC systems leaving rooms sweltering or freezing, no more windowless classrooms or air quality concerns, and no more conditions that fail to reflect the vibrant learning happening within them,” Lexington Public Schools Superintendent Julie Hackett wrote to the district Tuesday morning.
Please lower the town taxes on those residents over 65 ~
There are property tax deferral and Community Preservation Act exemption programs for seniors. You can read about them at https://www.lexingtonma.gov/168/Elderly-Other-Tax-Relief
But those exemptions were BEFORE the current debt exclusion.
Gary Geisler is right to request this. Affordable housing is especially important for seniors who have lived in Lexington for many years, and should not be pushed out.
No that is tax deferral not relief. There is the question that the subsidized interest rate can create a income tax liability between that and the fair market loan rate . There is work your tax off but that is at minimum wage for something like 110 hours max, which comes out thereabouts of 6%. It’s also regular income that is (income) taxable Quite clear that the community does not care about it’s seniors. 80% of the tax levy benefits 20% of the residents (school system) and 20% general needs benefit the rest.
Attempting to demonstrate that the participation of 37 percent of registered voters, about 1 in 3, in the high school debt exclusion vote, a decision of monumental importance, which I supported, is ABSURD! Bob Pressman
What sort of turnout does Lexington have for other municipal elections? I think you’ll find this vote was on the high end.
Those who, like Bob and Meg, are wondering about the issue of voter turnout in Lexington’s municipal elections may be interested in taking a look at “Our Vote, Our Community: Addressing Low Voter Turnout in Lexington’s Local Elections,” a report to the Select Board recently completed by the Vision for Lexington Subcommittee on Local Election Voter Participation. Here’s the link: https://records.lexingtonma.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=3431880&dbid=0&repo=TownOfLexington&cr=1
Please lower the town taxes on residents over 65
It is unfortunate that anyone, including the Lexington Observer, portrays a 37% voter turnout (as “thirty-seven percent”, and not “37%”) as anything short of anemically embarrassing. At $660M, the new LHS will likely be the project with the biggest impact on Lexington’s debt level, and on residents’ taxes. Furthermore, consider that a 37% turnout at Town Meeting would have been insufficient for us to vote on Article 8 in November, which moved the debt exclusion to a town-wide referendum, in the first place.
In addition to your valid points, Umesh, if the TMM had truly represented the people and mirrored their 62% ‘yes,’ the TMM vote would have sent the issue back to the School Building Committee for reconsideration. Unfortunately, the TMM instead chose to pass the decision responsibility on to a referendum.
Umesh, I’m not getting your point. It’s been pointed out by other residents that what you refer to as “anemically embarrassing” is actually on the high side for voter turnout in Lexington. Are you questioning the validity of that statement? Are you suggesting that the town establish a threshold minimum percentage in order for a vote to be valid? Because if you are, no-one, including town meeting candidates, would ever get elected to office. Or, are you implying that because “only” 37% of registered voters turned out that the debt exclusion vote is not valid?
63% of Lexington’s registered voters DID NOT exercise their right to vote in the Debt Exclusion Election. To not vote was their choice. It indicates they were comfortable with the outcome of the vote be it YES or NO.
As for Town Meeting representation, yes, TMMs represent their neighborhoods and precincts. They also represent the entire Town. This lesson I learned many years ago from then fellow TMM Judy Uhrig, former member of the School Committee, Town Meeting, and Zoning Board of Appeals, when I planned to vote against enlarging the Center pool complex because it backs up to neighbors’ back yards. Her admonition was in my mind when I made the decision to support Yes for Lexington and to vote YES for the debt exclusion. It was the right thing to do for the Town and for the education of our students.
Ruth Thomas
10 Parker Street
TMM Precinct 4