JOSEPH N. PATO

JOSEPH N. PATO

Name: Joseph Pato
Office Sought: Select Board
e-mail address: joe [at] joepato.org
phone number: 781-325-8631

Community Activities: 

  • Town Meeting Member, Precinct 2, 2008-2013
  • Appropriation Committee Member, 2009-2012
  • Select Board
    • Elected 2013, Re-elected 2016, 2019, 2022
    • Chair, 2014-2016, 2023-2024

The largest building project in Lexington is the proposed new Lexington High School. The School Building Committee, after holding many public meetings, supports the “Bloom” design to be built on the adjacent playing fields. A group of citizens has put forth an alternate plan which would be build on the grounds of the current school and leave the playing fields intact.
Which plan do you support and why?

I support the “Bloom” design – the School Building Committee’s (SBC) submission to the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA). This proposal is the result of two years of work, including 200+ public meetings, incorporating input from a wide range of community perspectives. This project satisfies key criteria:

  • First and foremost, it meets the district’s educational plan, providing appropriate space for all academic needs.
  • It is designed for flexibility – with space for growth in phases should that be needed.
  • It is designed for improved safety – with features not present in the current multiple building campus.
  • It responds to community feedback by reducing disruption to playing fields. The submitted plan ensures that varsity baseball, softball and the rectangular field formed by their outfields stay in their current location and moves the football, practice and little league fields to the area where the current school buildings are located.
  • It responds to parent and student feedback by reducing student disruption, enabling the current LHS to remain operational until students are relocated to the new facility.
  • It provides the fastest transition with students relocating to the completed new facility after 3 years of construction. This will be followed by 18 months of demolition of the old facility and construction of the relocated fields.
  • It is cheaper and quicker to build than the options to create an MSBA compliant school on the grounds occupied by the current school.

The alternative concept suggested by a group of citizens does not satisfy the minimum requirements for an MSBA supported project.

  • It does not meet the district’s educational plan.
  • It contemplates multiple independent phases – a process not supported by the MSBA.

These limitations disqualify this concept from further consideration as an MSBA eligible project – a requirement for what the SBC explores.

In addition, it does not address the obsolescence of infrastructure systems and safety concerns with the existing buildings. Addressing these issues brings the project costs in line with the costs associated with the in-place addition/renovation options explored by the SBC. These were all more expensive than the “Bloom” option. Pursuing this option will leave us with an inferior facility that takes longer to develop and is more disruptive to students.

We are entering the schematic design phase of the project, when the basic design concept is transformed from abstract building blocks into detailed specifications. I have stressed to the SBC and the project architects that we need a modest design, one that creates a robust and sound facility but avoids unnecessary expense. I am committed to keeping costs in check.

I am also committed to working on ways to reduce the resulting financial burden by seeking new funding sources, rebalancing expenses, and lobbying for additional state aid. The latest financing models being explored by the Town show taxpayer impact spread over a 10-year period with small increases in excluded debt added to property taxes each of those years.

Ultimately, town voters will decide how we will proceed with the high school building project. My goal is to provide us with a project that voters will agree best meets our collective needs.