Lexington town meeting tables FY2027 operating budget after heated debate over school layoffs and free‑cash amendment

The Lexington annual town meeting on March 30 opened with ceremonial music and routine business but turned into a long, sometimes emotional session focused on Article 4, the FY2027 operating budget.

Moderator opened the budget debate after presentations from Minute Man Regional Vocational School, the town manager, and Lexington Public Schools. Superintendent Julie Hackett told town meeting members that the proposed school budget totals $151.7 million, a 3.9% increase, and that school leaders had already identified 72 full‑time equivalent positions to reduce and issued roughly 160 layoff notices (known in the session as “pink slips”) as part of a process to align staffing with declining enrollment and rising mandated costs.

Hackett said the district’s cost pressures are driven primarily by contractual salary steps, a roughly 9% health‑insurance renewal, rising transportation expenses and steep increases in special‑education tuition. She told the meeting the FY27 plan relied in part on circuit‑breaker funds and reductions that she described as painful but necessary to avoid an operating override.

The town manager, Steve Bara, presented the municipal side of the FY27 budget as a level‑service plan facing similar structural pressures: flat commercial growth, a 9% health‑insurance renewal and rising contract costs. Bara emphasized the town’s strong reserves and the policy to protect core services while identifying tradeoffs in capital planning tied to the Lexington High School project.

Public commentary and several town meeting members focused on the school reductions. Student and parent speakers, including a Lexington High School student who said she has benefited from long‑standing teacher relationships, urged town meeting members to reject cuts that they said would degrade instruction, extracurricular programs and student supports. Numerous speakers argued the town should consider placing an operating override question before voters rather than implementing the proposed layoffs.

In the midst of debate, Town Meeting Member Doug McKenna moved an amendment to increase the school personnel services line by $1,250,000, with the amendment funded from the town’s unallocated free cash. McKenna described the motion as a modest, one‑year fix to preserve staff while longer‑term policy decisions are developed.

Several finance bodies opposed using free cash for recurring operating expenses. The select board, appropriation committee and capital expenditures committee each recommended against McKenna’s amendment, warning that relying on one‑time cash to pay ongoing salaries would create a structural budget hole for FY28 and risk the town’s fiscal stability. “Using free cash for recurring operating expenses is considered a sign of structural imbalance,” the select board said during its recommendation.

The school committee, however, voted unanimously in support of the amendment after an on‑the‑floor caucus; school committee members said the additional one‑time funding would meaningfully reduce immediate harm to students and staff.

Following extended debate and several procedural motions, town meeting voted to table Article 4. The tabling motion carried 97 in favor, 71 opposed, with 11 abstentions. Because the article was tabled, town meeting did not adopt the McKenna amendment or the FY27 operating budget on March 30.

The moderator said the meeting will reconvene at a later date to resume Article 4. In the meantime, town and school leaders and finance committees signaled plans to continue policy conversations about the town‑school funding split, possible override options, and alternatives to mitigate staff reductions.

What happens next: the moderator and town staff will announce a date to reconvene and take up Article 4; the school committee and select board indicated they will continue working together on longer‑term budget policy options and any outreach about override timing and scope.

Quote highlights: “Using free cash for recurring operating expenses is considered structural budget imbalance,” the select board warned, urging caution about one‑time funding for salaries. “We are cutting positions precisely to avoid an override,” Superintendent Julie Hackett said, describing the process that produced the list of reductions. “Vote no or abstain if you want to register a protest,” one town meeting member urged; others said a no vote could risk having no budget at all.

The meeting adjourned with the consent agenda and remaining items postponed until Article 4 is resolved.