PatrickPost #2 — Prop 2 ½, tax levy limit, operating overrides and debt exclusions

1/28/25

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my second PatrickPost. The first one is here, and you can subscribe for all future ones here.

Balancing Lexington’s budgets

Proposition 2 ½ limits the total amount the Town can collect in taxes (called the “levy limit”) to 2.5% more than the previous year’s levy limit, unless

• new residential or commercial construction happens, called “new growth”, and/or

• voters approve an “operating override” or a “debt exclusion” by referendum, put to them by the Select Board.

New growth happens when an older house, for example assessed at $600,000 is replaced in a “tear-down” by say a $2,600,000 new house. The $2,000,000 of additional assessment yields taxes to the Town over the Prop 2 ½ levy limit. The same thing happens when a commercial building is built or improved, or when a residential property is substantially improved. Once the new $2,600,000 house (or commercial building) is part of the Town’s total assessments ($16 billion for all residential assessments in FY25), its future taxes are subject to the Prop 2 ½ levy limit rules.

Each house’s taxes do not increase uniformly by 2.5% each year — only the levy limit increases by 2.5%, but each house’s taxes increase by a different amount depending on the house’s assessment relative change compared with all assessments.

An operating override is put to the voters by a simple majority of the Select Board, 3 out of 5 members in Lexington, but a debt exclusion requires a 2/3 majority of the Select Board, or 4 members, to be put to the voters.

Once passed, an operating override increases the levy limit permanently, whereas a debt exclusion increases our taxes only for the 20-40 years during which debt service is due, similar to a mortgage which is eventually paid off.

Unlike the Federal government’s budget, the Town budget must be balanced each year. This is what makes long-range (5, 10, 15 years out) financial planning so essential — yet not currently done in Lexington.

If we continue to not plan for the long-term, we may unintentionally destroy the quality of our schools and of our town services by making decisions now that have long-term impacts later that we did not recognize in time: anything we decide today may make balancing future budgets very difficult or impossible, as I will explain in future PatrickPosts about the 2023 MBTA rezoning for 10 times the number of possible dwellings the State required, or now proceeding with a new High School designed for 30 fewer students than we currently have, while our population will be growing. 

Back to Table of Contents

PatrickPost #4 — MBTA zoning: what happened?

2/5/25

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my fourth PatrickPost. The previous ones are here, and you can subscribe to receive all future ones here.

What did Lexington do about MBTA rezoning?

We have a housing crisis in the greater Boston area. The State passed, wisely in my view, the MBTA Communities Act, to require communities served by MBTA buses, subways, trains or ferries to relax their zoning on a certain number of acres to allow multi-family housing developments of 15 or more dwellings per acre to be built by-right.

Lexington had to rezone 50 acres for MBTA developments. Instead, Town Meeting rezoned 4.5 times that acreage, or 228 acres for such dense developments. The Planning Board told Town Meeting to expect “400-800 units in 4-10 years” (slide 14 of this presentation) based perhaps on a “study” by Tom Shiple (now a candidate for the Planning Board), Jay Luker and Barbara Katzenberg of the Lexington Cluster Housing Study Group that “arrive[d] at an estimate of 657 new units of housing in 10 years”. This study was deeply flawed. Believing its numbers without seeing its flaws has led to the problems I describe below.

The Select Board supported rezoning 228 acres (instead of 50) by a 4-1 vote in April 2023 — only Doug Lucente wisely opposed this but Joe Pato, who is running for re-election, supported this dangerous decision. Neither the Appropriation Committee, which is supposed to watch over the Town’s budgets, nor the School Committee, which will have to provide education to all the children living in our future MBTA dwellings, opined on this massive rezoning.

Less than 2 years later, 9 by-right MBTA developments are known, which will generate 1,120 new dwellings (tab 3 of my analysis), 88% of which are apartments, and 12% condos.

In November 2023, the State notified the Town that the 228 acres rezoned for MBTA developments could result in up to 12,546 new dwellings, potentially doubling Lexington’s population (now 12,337 households), making it impossible to balance our Town budgets even if far fewer than 12,546 MBTA dwellings are eventually built. If our population doubles, where would we build and how would we pay for 6 new elementary schools, 2 new middle schools and a new high school?

What can be done to fix the problem?

We should comply with the MBTA Communities Act and have 50 acres zoned for MBTA developments. A citizens petition aims to do this by having Town Meeting roll back the financially unsustainable 228 acres now zoned for by-right MBTA developments to the reasonably mandated 50. I hope this will happen in March or April 2025 at the latest, before we are swamped with too many additional MBTA development applications, none of which, once filed, can be rejected.

On March 3, it is important to elect Town Meeting, School Committee, Planning Board and Select Board candidates who understand the magnitude of the April 2023 mistake and who are committed to reverse that dangerous decision. We all want more diverse housing in Lexington, but budget realities cannot be ignored if we want to maintain the high quality of our schools.

If elected on March 3, I will ensure that no future major decision is ever made in Lexington without a full data-driven analysis of all its long-term financial and other impacts on our budgets, quality of our schools and quality of life in Lexington. I know how to conduct such analyses because that’s what I have done throughout my professional career.

My next PatrickPost will explain in greater detail how catastrophic the April 2023 decision to rezone 228 acres instead of 50 was, and will continue to be if it is not rolled back soon. 

PatrickPost #8 - Protecting our trees and our environment

2/18/2025

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my eighth PatrickPost. The previous ones are here, and you can subscribe to receive all future ones here.

What does our Tree by-law do?

Shortly after I moved to Lexington in 1999, I noticed that builders were cutting trees as if they were blades of grass while doing a “tear-down”. I joined the Town’s Tree Committee and co-wrote our first Tree by-law. I presented it in 2000 at Town Meeting which adopted it — the first in Massachusetts to provide some protection for trees on private property. But it only dealt with trees located in the setback of a lot, and only when 50% or more of a structure’s footprint was replaced, basically in “tear-down” situations. We were careful in 2000 to limit the scope of the by-law so it would, as required, be approved by the Attorney General. We made the Building Commissioner the key point of contact, not the Tree Warden who traditionally dealt only with “shade trees” on public property.

A quarter of a century later, we realize that majestic trees, wherever located on a private lot, and whether or not any major construction occurs, are part of the “public good” just like clean air and unpolluted fresh water, helping make Lexington climate resilient. Just like our Conservation Lands afford us the possibility to take “forest baths” as the Japanese call them, majestic trees are an indispensable part of Lexington’s character. Yet three huge oaks, each over 30 inches in diameter at breast height (“DBH”) were cut only because the property owner wanted less shade and less “mess” from acorns, in just the next two streets from me in less than a year. I champion property owners’ rights in most areas, but when it comes to vanishing old growth trees, the community’s needs are compelling.

How can our Tree by-law be strengthened?

Going forward, we need better coordination between the Building Commissioner and the Tree Warden: builders don’t pay fees owed after cutting “protected” trees, protected trees are cut without a permit, healthy trees are declared “hazardous” only so they can be cut. We must do better. Fines allowed by State law are so small as to be meaningless. Builders who repeatedly violate our Tree by-law should become ineligible for new building permits in Lexington.

The enforcement of other environmental by-laws is also ineffective, for example the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. If elected, I will ensure that all Town staff, including the Police Department, properly enforce all our by-laws.

Also, we must prevent any unjustified cutting of large trees and strengthen our Tree by-law by adding language such as this to it: “No tree of 16 inches DBH or more shall be cut without a permit, which permit shall be issued only if (a) the tree represents a danger to a nearby structure or to the public, or (b) the total cost of the projected improvement on the lot increases by at least 30% if the tree remains in place, compared with what the cost would be if the tree was removed. If a permit is issued under (a) or (b), the lot owner shall mitigate per the requirements of the present by-law, via replanting or payment into the Town’s tree replanting fund.”

If elected this March 3, I will get our Tree Committee to present this critical Tree by-law amendment to Town Meeting in year 1, a concrete action towards resiliency, not just talk. I am also aware of the critical needs to control invasive species that strangle our shared lands and to promote native plantings. As I learn more from residents and working committees, I will move us toward action on these fronts. I am committed to actively preserving Lexington's “green” future.

PatrickPost #10 - A STAGED new High School design preserves MSBA funding and is less risky and more flexible than Bloom

2/24/2025

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my tenth PatrickPost. The previous ones are here, and you can subscribe to receive all future ones here.

A STAGED High School design preserves MSBA funding and is less risky and more flexible

SMMA, the same firm now working on Bloom, wrote the “Phase 3—Master Plan Options, Lexington Public Schools Master Plan” in January 2015. Pages 57-61 of that 504-page document outline several ways to replace and upgrade an existing LHS building, most likely its foreign languages building.

Our School Building Committee (SBC) does not listen to the public, especially not to former School Committee member Olga Guttag who developed, with minor input from me, the following staged design for our new High School (HS): it is a better, quicker, cheaper, more flexible design than Bloom, that can accommodate more students, does not impact our sports fields and can receive 31% support from the MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) for Phase 1, far more than the 15.2% Bloom qualifies for.

To fund a project, the MSBA sets a “design enrollment”, 2,395 students for Lexington’s new HS — fewer than our current 2,405 LHS students, before any additional students, possibly many hundreds, live in our new MBTA dwellings. The MSBA has accepted our SBC’s preferred design, Bloom, designed at 85% capacity utilization for 2,395 students, with an approved educational plan. The Schools Superintendent announced in January 2025 that Bloom can accommodate up to 3,238 students via 3 “stretches”, (1) squeezing more students per classroom, (2) converting 20,000 square feet of central office space into classrooms, and (3) building an addition to Bloom. The Superintendent had said in October 2024 that these 3 stretches could accommodate 3,651 students. Whether the correct number is 3,238 or 3,651, Bloom’s maximal capacity is well below the 4,200 students capacity of a staged design, as we will see below.

As designed at 85% capacity utilization, Bloom will be as cramped as LHS now is once future HS enrollments reach 3,329 students with no stretch, or 3,485 students if stretch (2) is implemented.

The staged design outlined here qualifies for MSBA funding because it follows the same rules as Bloom: the full staged design is for 2,395 students, built in 2 Phases, with stretches.

Phase 1 is similar to what the Schools’ 2015 Master Plan recommended: a new 4-story building with a footprint of roughly 120 ft by 360 ft replacing the LHS’s foreign languages building provides 172,800 square feet of space, or 24 classrooms per floor, a total of 96 classrooms. At least 4.5 similar-sized buildings fit on the current LHS campus, or 777,600 square feet of space, 76% more than Bloom’s 440,816 square feet. Bloom’s size is environmentally constrained by our football practice field, while the current LHS campus offers more buildable space as these schematics— they are not a proposed design, they only illustrate the space available on which to build — illustrate:

These 4.5 buildings (in blue, left schematic) can accommodate up to 4,200 students at 85% occupancy (1.76 times Bloom’s 2,395 capacity), more than Bloom can (3,238 or 3,651 students) with additional unknown costs for stretches (2) and (3), several $10s of millions on top of Bloom’s $658 million base cost, and with students cramped at 90%+ capacity utilization.

The SBC’s architects should design and cost-estimate this staged design’s Phase 1 and Phase 2 (see below) — Olga and I cannot do this because we are not architects —, something they never did, risking failure of the Article 97 land swap Bloom needs since all alternatives must have been considered before Article 97 is invoked.

Demolition of the foreign languages building and construction of the new stand- alone, 4-story academic building can be completed in about 2 years. The new 4-story building is large enough to accommodate the relocation of all core academic classrooms, including science labs, allowing LHS to offer again the full curricular selection of electives no later than Bloom and most likely a year sooner. Phase 1’s 96 classrooms are all spaces the MSBA reimburses at 31%, well above 15.2% as Bloom qualifies for ($100 million out of a $658 million Bloom cost, not counting the costs of Bloom’s stretches (2) and (3) which the SBC has not estimated).

Construction of Phase 2 will start after Phase 1 is completed and occupied. With on-site modulars (needed for Phase 1) and 70+ empty classrooms in the old LHS buildings, the worst educational spaces can be shut down to reduce the cost of operating the existing campus until Phase 2 is completed. Depending on how many and how fast our new MBTA dwellings are built and occupied, by September 2028 or certainly by September 2029, we will have enough data about their occupants’ demographic mix to develop reasonable projections for our future HS enrollments at least 10 years, and hopefully further, out.

Based on these 2028-29 reasonable enrollment projections — no such projections are possible now —, we will decide to build Phase 2 for 2,395 students as per the plan originally submitted to the MSBA, or we will renegotiate our HS design enrollment with the MSBA based on our then available enrollment projections and use the approved stretches up to all the additional buildable space on the LHS campus as shown in the schematic above.

Construction of the Phase 2 portion of the MSBA-approved project (one or more buildings on the existing LHS campus) will start in the Fall of 2028 or Fall of 2029 and will be completed in 2032 or 2033 at the latest.

While waiting to know the demographics of our new MBTA dwellings’ residents, we must immediately start lobbying the Governor and the Legislature to have the MSBA adapt its rules to accommodate enrollment unpredictability due to rapid population growth, as Lexington will experience. As of today, 2/23/25, we could eventually see some 3,000 MBTA dwellings in addition to the 1,120 already known ones in 9 projects, or a total of 4,000 new MBTA dwellings, a 30% increase of Lexington’s population (now some 12,000 households).

We may need, as a result, to accommodate massive numbers of new HS students, for example another 2,000 beyond the MSBA’s 2,395 design capacity. In the staged design we can do so by adding more space on the existing LHS campus. Bloom, even at maximum capacity, cannot accommodate such high enrollments, and has no space to build another addition. Since a HS with such large enrollment is not educationally desirable, with the staged design the Superintendent’s strategy to realign grades can be implemented to create a HS for grades 10-12 with 3,300 students and a separate Freshmen House for 1,100 students. Since this extension of Phase 2 of the staged design is part of the same project, the MSBA will grant us additional funding immediately without making Lexington wait again for 8 years as it normally takes to reach the front of the MSBA’s queue of applicants. In contrast, with Bloom, we may have to wait for another 8 years since no additional building can be built as part of Lexington’s original MSBA submission.

If the voters send me to the Select Board on March 3, I will on March 4 start working with the SBC so it pivots immediately from Bloom, a project so risky and inflexible as to jeopardize the future of our schools, to the staged design outlined here.

PatrickPost #12 - What does it mean to be “fiscally responsible”?

2/27/25

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my twelfth PatrickPost. The previous ones are here, and you can subscribe to receive all future ones here.

What does it mean to be “fiscally responsible”?

When the campaign started, I announced that I am fiscally conservative — and socially liberal. Now that election day is near, all candidates have jumped on this bandwagon: they are all “fiscally responsible”. “Fiscal responsibility” is pasted on election flyers, claimed in social media posts, repeated in candidate forums. But what does it really mean? It’s not just about showing up to many meetings, or approving budgets after formal “summits”.

Fiscal responsibility is the concrete, hands-on, proactive process of determining whether the Town (schools and municipal side) makes the best use of its financial resources — our taxpayers’ dollars — and of finding ways to run the schools and deliver services at a lower cost. Identifying such improvements is hard, so I listen intently to people of diverse views who point out areas that hold potential for improvement. I then ask probing, often challenging and sometimes uncomfortable questions. I analyze data, seek feedback and often revise and refine. In these PatrickPosts, I tried to provide context and new information. I suggested some solutions and presented data-driven scenarios that are necessary to understand the future impacts of our decisions on our Town budgets 5, 10 or 15 years down the road — something the Town does not do today, but which I would implement as a Select Board member. I used this process to analyze our MBTA zoning decisions to assess their impact on us all — something my fellow candidates did not do.

Let’s look at one example in the schools.

How full are our elementary classrooms?

Per School Committee policy, as codified in our teachers’ unions contracts, elementary classrooms have a “preferred” number of children in each grade, and cannot have more than a “maximum” number of children per classroom without an assistant teacher. The current “preferred” and “maximum” numbers are as follow:

·      “preferred” size: K: 18; 1st and 2nd grade: 22; 3rd, 4th and 5th grade: 24.

·      “maximum” size: K: 20; 1st grade: 24; 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th grade: 26.

In the current school year 2024-25 this is the number of students in each classroom in each grade in each of our 6 elementary schools as reported by our Schools’ administration. I put those numbers into this spreadsheet to see how many seats are unoccupied in each of the 133 elementary classrooms staffed systemwide this school year, as a percentage of the capacity of those 133 classrooms at “preferred” or “maximum” enrollment per classroom.

As the blue and red tables in rows 51 to 118, columns A-I of the spreadsheet show, our 133 classrooms have 14% of their seats empty against “preferred” size and 22% empty against “maximum” size. If we had reassigned — which we obviously cannot and should not do in the middle of a school year — just 86 children (or 3.3% of our total 2,578 elementary schoolchildren) from their current elementary school building to another one, we could educate all 2,578 children in 108 classrooms instead of 133, saving 25 classrooms and teacher positions, or some $3 million after the additional bussing costs related to the 86 children (the precise amount of which I do not know) are factored in.

To make these $3 million in annual savings possible, the Lexington Public Schools (LPS) must abandon their current geography-based assignment policies and consider four new, simple, fair rules:

1. No children from the same household will ever be in different elementary school buildings, unless the family so requires and the LPS can accommodate the request.

2. A child in a given elementary school building will end her/his elementary schooling in the same school building, unless the family requires otherwise and the LPS can accommodate the request.

3. The LPS will attempt to place an elementary child entering the LPS in the elementary school geographically closest to that child's dwelling, unless the family requires otherwise and the LPS can accommodate the request.

4. The LPS have the right, at their sole discretion, to assign an elementary school child entering the LPS system to a school that is not geographically the closest to the child's dwelling for educational, budgetary or any other reason.

Obviously this would be a significant change from longstanding practice, not to be undertaken lightly. But what would have happened if LPS had done this years ago? Over 20 years, the savings would be equivalent to the cost of a full new elementary school or could significantly offset, via our Capital Stabilization Fund, the cost of a new High School. And this year, it would have easily closed a $2 million budget gap, averting the current budget freeze. The fiscal impact is but one of many considerations — but it’s one that cannot be ignored.

The School Committee's responsibility is to oversee school operations, determine budget priorities, and set school policies. But because the schools (Line 1100 and the schools’ part of Program 2000 of the Town budget) represent 80% of our total budget, the Select Board must delve deeper into that 80% to ensure that we are truly spending wisely — that the Town, including the Schools, is “fiscally responsible”. Our current budget process does not serve us well. Each year, the Schools plan their budget based on a percentage (for the upcoming FY26, 74%) of the Town’s total expected tax revenues and other funding sources. The Schools generate budget requests based on enrollment projections and prior known costs. Only after the School Committee has approved the school budget, does the Town weigh in, too late to analyze details or to find better ways to operate that may save money — i.e. to be more fiscally responsible. Never are the Schools asked “can you operate next year with 73% or 71% instead of 74% of our expected revenues?” That gives the Schools no incentive to be as fiscally responsible as possible — in my example, reducing in FY26 the FY25 14% or 22% of empty seats found in my analysis.

Not all issues confronting Lexington should be decided solely on costs and $ figures. But failing to fully understand cost impacts is short-sighted and irresponsible. “Fiscal responsibility” does not mean just cutting — it means doing the creative and often challenging analytical work needed to find the best solutions that will work for us all. Each tax dollar must be wisely used.

If elected to the Select Board, my priority will always be to find ways to save taxpayers money, including via creative, out-of-the-box approaches.

PatrickPost #13 - Meet Patrick in this 30-minute interview

3/1/25

Dear Lexington neighbors,

This is my thirteenth, and last for now, PatrickPost. The previous ones are here.

During this campaign, I’ve been called “the guy who gets to say ‘I told you so’ every five or ten years on critical Lexington issues” that were initially overlooked. With humility, it has often been true. My wide-ranging analyses over many years (while in Town Meeting for 15 years and after that as well) — on cost savings, school enrollment impacts, house assessments, budget optimization and possible new, out-of-the-box solutions for Lexington — have been largely accurate, if dismissed at first. I’m the nerd who, when challenged with an intriguing question, dives into the data, asks tough questions, and continually refines solutions as new information emerges — as I learned to do for major clients at the Boston Consulting Group. I am persistent and also a very keen listener because new viewpoints bring new insights and better solutions. These are critical skills needed on the Select Board, now more than ever.

Through the collective efforts of so many, Lexington developed a future vision for the town — diverse, resilient, vibrant, valuing education and our environment. Town leaders must now turn that vision into reality. Not easy to do. We face complex land use issues (a.k.a. MBTA zoning), expensive school building projects, operating budgets that will be stressed to the limit and beyond by new housing growth and the need for looming infrastructure upgrades. We need to steward our natural lands and support our diverse residents. Weighing our well-intentioned goals versus real life impacts will be challenging if we are to avoid “bankrupting” the town — budgets becoming so hard to balance as to force us to starve the schools of resources. We need ongoing, robust long-term financial planning based on all relevant data sources, some of them hard to locate or develop. Not all decisions must be made based on costs; but all decisions have cost impacts, some massive and some materializing only in the future, so hard to apprehend upfront.

I’m not interested in ’I told you so’ and never have been. My priority is to bring my skills to the table, work alongside all of you, collect from all who come forward any and all ideas that can help us together keep our schools strong and our town the great place it is, ensuring that together we build the best diverse, vibrant, community we all want.

Meet Patrick in this 30-minute interview