Middlesex County
Lexington
Data through FY2026; built October 19, 2026.
State House
- 15th Middlesex · Michelle L. Ciccolo
- 21st Middlesex · Kenneth I. Gordon
Lexington is split among two House districts. Shares are of 2020 residents.
State Senate
- Fourth Middlesex · Cindy F. Friedman
- Third Middlesex · Michael J. Barrett
School districts
Regional planning agency
Metropolitan Area Planning Council
Fairness Index
Lexington scores 36 on the Fairness Index for all state aid and 12 for discretionary money. Fifty is a fair share.
All state aid
36 / 100250th of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 205th to 282nd.
Stable low: below 45 under every weighting
Lexington received less than its share of state aid on three of four measures; its blended score of 36 stays between 30 and 43 under every weighting tested.
Discretionary money only
12 / 100342nd of 351 (1 = most above its share)
Rank under other weightings: 337th to 345th.
Stable low: below 45 under every weighting
Lexington received less than its share of discretionary money on all four measures; its blended score of 12 stays between 10 and 14 under every weighting tested.
Each bar is one way of defining a fair share: Equal, the same per resident; Need, weighted toward poverty, low income and a thin tax base; Burden, by what each program pays for (road miles, bridges, pupils and so on); Effort, by what residents already pay in property tax relative to their income. The line marks 50. The score is the average of the four. Discretionary money is competitive grants and earmarks that name the town. How the index is built.
State money, FY2017–FY2026
Lexington’s town government and school districts received $309 million in formula aid and $2.1 million in competitive grants over ten years.
Formula aid
$309M
$9,001 per resident (222nd of 351) · gross
Competitive grants
$2.1M
$61.92 per resident (345th of 351)
Earmark-account payments
$1.5M
$44.46 per resident (91st of 351)
Each class has its own scale. Bars show dollars paid in each fiscal year.
Formula aid is gross: Chapter 70 as DESE attributes it to the town, and cherry-sheet aid before the state deducts charges such as charter tuition and transit assessments, plus other formula programs as paid. Competitive grants and earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts (stage: paid), the same payees as the Fairness Index. Enacted earmarks and earmark payments are different things: enacted earmarks are budget clauses, counted three ways above; earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts from accounts classified as earmarks, which can include prior-year and statewide-program money. Either can be larger. Shared revenue, pass-through contracts, transfers to state entities and unclassified payments, $23.1M in all, are not shown. Rank 1 is the highest amount per resident among 351.
Formula aid is gross; competitive grants and earmark-account payments are as paid. Other classes, $23.1 million, are not shown.
Earmarks
Lexington received $1.4 million in local earmarks naming the town, $3.9 million placed in the town and $3.9 million counting everything placed, in ten enacted budgets.
Names the town
$1.4M
$40.50 per resident (185th of 351)
Placed in the town
$3.9M
$113 per resident (55th of 351)
Everything placed
$3.9M
$113 per resident (61st of 351)
Losers Club
Not a member
35 municipalities had none
Local earmarks are counted three ways: clauses that name Lexington; clauses placed in Lexington, adding organizations located here; and everything placed, adding state facilities located here. Three ways to count a local earmark.
Placed in the town: 32 clauses in ten of ten budgets; the most recent in FY2026. $1.4 million came in clauses that name Lexington; the other $2.5 million went to organizations based in Lexington, some of which serve a wider area.
| Year | Amount | Budget text (excerpt) | Stage |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY2022 | $350,000 | “the NAN Project in the town of Lexington to increase mental health awareness and suicide prevention programming in schools and communities” | Enacted names the town |
| FY2026 | $250,000 | “not less than $250,000 for the assisted outpatient treatment program at Eliot Community Human Services, Inc. to treat residents who suffer from…” | Enacted recipient based here |
| FY2025 | $250,000 | “not less than $250,000 for the assisted outpatient treatment program at Eliot Community Human Services, Inc. to treat residents who suffer from…” | Enacted recipient based here |
| FY2024 | $250,000 | “not less than $250,000 for the assisted outpatient treatment program at Eliot Community Human Services, Inc. to treat residents who suffer from…” | Enacted recipient based here |
| FY2023 | $250,000 | “not less than $250,000 for the assisted outpatient treatment program at Eliot Community Human Services, Inc. to treat residents who suffer from…” | Enacted recipient based here |
Enacted earmarks and earmark payments are different things: enacted earmarks are budget clauses, counted three ways above; earmark-account payments are Comptroller payments to the town government and its school districts from accounts classified as earmarks, which can include prior-year and statewide-program money. Either can be larger.
What the town carries
Measured against what it maintains, Lexington received 57% of its proportional share of competitive grant awards.
Local road miles
132.0
48th of 351 · 3.8 per 1,000 residents (284th of 351)
Town-owned bridges, replacement cost
$4.9M
scored exposure $2.4M · none in poor condition
Road-stream crossings
95
128th of 351 · culverts and small crossings
Town-owned hazard dams
2
high or significant hazard
Land area
16.4 sq mi
1% state-owned
Seasonal homes
0%
share of housing units
Peak service population
34,358
residents plus seasonal
Core infrastructure index
1.08
roads, culverts, dams, coast, flood, energy
The burden index divides the competitive awards Lexington received from FY2017 to FY2026 by what it would have received if every program had split its money by its own measure of need: road miles for road programs, crossings for culvert grants, town-owned hazard dams for dam repair, jobs for economic development, residents for libraries. 1.0 is proportional. Lexington: 0.57. State median: 0.91. Bridges count by replacement cost and condition, not by number, and only bridges the town owns. Ranks run from 1, the most among 351.
Burden index 0.57; state median 0.91; 1.0 is proportional. Ranks run from 1, the most among 351.
State land and growth
State land eligible for PILOT
0 acres
no eligible state land in FY2026
State-owned land PILOT, FY2026
$0
payment in lieu of taxes, cherry sheet
PILOT per eligible acre
not applicable
no eligible acres · statewide $117
New growth per resident
$65,023
FY2017–2025 · 21st of 351 · median town $20,524
State land eligible for PILOT is the Division of Local Services’ count of state-owned acres on which the state pays a payment in lieu of taxes; the payment follows the land’s assessed value, not its acreage, so the per-acre figure is a comparison, not the formula. The state-owned share on the land-area tile above is the MassGIS map of all state-owned open space, a wider count. New growth is the assessed value of new construction and improvements added to the tax base, summed FY2017–FY2025 and divided by 2020–24 residents; taxed at the prior year’s rates, it adds to the levy limit beyond 2.5%.
Costs and the 2½% limit
State aid covered 7.3% of Lexington’s general-fund spending in FY2025, up from 6.6% in FY2006.
State aid as a share of general-fund spending
FY2006
6.6%
$8.6M of $131M · median town 14.1%
FY2016
6.5%
$11.6M of $177M · median town 12.2%
FY2025
7.3%
$20.5M of $279M · median town 11.5%
Net of state charges, FY2025
6.9%
FY2010: 6.2% · median town 10.0%
State aid is the gross cherry sheet as entered on the tax rate recap; spending is the town’s general-fund expenditures as filed with the Division of Local Services. Net subtracts the charges the state assesses on the same cherry sheet (charter and school-choice tuition, transit, county and other assessments), itemized from FY2010.
Lexington’s own cherry sheet carries no Chapter 70 for pupils in its regional district; the state paid $309,000 in FY2025 Chapter 70 to the district on its behalf, outside these figures, while the town’s assessment to the district sits in its spending. For a regional member the share understates state support for school costs.
Gross state aid went from $8.6 million in FY2006 to $20.5 million in FY2025, +137.7% in dollars. Consumer prices are the Boston-area CPI-U, up 55.1% over those years; government prices are the federal price index for state and local government purchases, up 74.5%. Fiscal-year averages.
Fixed costs against the 2½% limit, FY2016–FY2025
Health insurance, FY2016–25
+58.2%
$22.8M to $36M · all towns +54.0%
All fixed costs, FY2016–25
+65.2%
$29.3M to $48.4M · all towns +53.0%
Years squeezed
7 of 9
fixed costs grew faster than allowed levy growth
Health insurance
5 of 9
years it grew faster than allowed levy growth
Nine years at 2.5% add 24.9%. Grown that way from FY2016, Lexington’s health insurance would have been $28.5 million in FY2025; it was $36 million, $7.58 million above the path. Its fixed costs would have been $36.6 million in FY2025; it was $48.4 million, $11.8 million above the path.
Fixed costs are employee benefits, retirement, insurance and similar costs in the general fund; health insurance comes from a separate DLS report. Allowed levy growth is 2.5% plus new growth, as a share of the prior year’s levy limit; a year counts as squeezed when fixed costs grew by a larger percentage.
Flag: fixed costs changed by more than 30% in one year in FY2021 (−66%) and FY2023 (+168%); health insurance changed by more than 30% in one year in FY2021 (−87%) and FY2023 (+745%). Swings this size usually mark costs moving between budget lines, into or out of trust funds, or into the state’s Group Insurance Commission, so the comparison may reflect accounting as well as cost.
Local earmarks against the health-insurance increase
Over the nine budgets, earmarks naming Lexington came to $1.2 million, 9.1% of the $13.3 million rise in its health insurance.
| Measure | Earmarks | Share of the increase | All towns, pooled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Names the town | $1.2M | 9.1% | 28.2% |
| Placed in the town | $3.5M | 26.1% | 42.3% |
| Everything placed | $3.5M | 26.1% | 45.2% |
An earmark is a one-year appropriation; a health-insurance increase recurs in every later budget. Earmarks are counted on the three measures and are not adjusted for the January 2024 mid-year cuts or the FY2026 hold. All towns: pooled over the towns that reported health insurance in both years. All dollars nominal. Method.
Schools
Lexington’s required school contribution is 2.7% of median household income, 162nd highest of 351.
Chapter 70 aid, FY2026
$19.7M
to the town’s district
Required local contribution
$79.6M
FY2026
Share of household income
2.7%
162nd of 351 (1 = highest)
Real aid per pupil, FY2017–26
+25%
after inflation
Lexington runs its own school district and also belongs to Minuteman; Lexington accounts for 14% of that district’s foundation budget.
Real figures use the CPI-U, fiscal-year average, in FY2026 dollars. The required contribution is the local share the state sets under the Chapter 70 formula; the share of income divides it per household by the town’s median household income.
Expected and actual
Lexington received $7.2 million in earmarks placed in the town and competitive grants over ten years, 52% of the $13.7 million its size, need and institutions predict.
The expectation comes from a statewide model of all 351 municipalities that uses population, road miles, jobs, poverty, income, tax base, school-aid share and the presence of hospitals, colleges and nonprofits. Those factors explain about 55–60% of the differences between towns. The model leaves out many legitimate reasons a town may receive more or less, such as a single large project, so a gap is a starting point for questions, not a finding about anyone’s conduct.
Earmarks here are placed in the town, the second of three measures (enacted); competitive grants are Comptroller payments (paid). Method.
Peers
Lexington ranks 3rd of 11 on earmark dollars placed in the town per resident among itself and its ten nearest peers.
Peers are the ten municipalities nearest to Lexington on population, income need and tax-base need. The best and lowest performers are the highest and lowest on earmark dollars placed in the town per resident in the wider class of 30 nearest, the second of three measures.
| Municipality | Fairness Index | Formula aid per resident | Competitive per resident | Earmarks placed in the town, per resident (enacted) | Burden index | School contribution, share of income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lexingtonthis town | 36 | $9,001 | $61.92 | $113 | 0.57 | 2.7% |
| Hinghampeer | 30 | $6,498 | $83.05 | $90.15 | 0.24 | 2.2% |
| Winchesterpeer | 28 | $6,820 | $40.16 | $49.13 | 0.45 | 2.5% |
| Needhampeer | 28 | $6,664 | $33.58 | $150 | 0.21 | 2.5% |
| Wellesleypeer | 28 | $6,221 | $46.83 | $99.75 | 0.18 | 1.9% |
| Marbleheadpeer | 29 | $6,094 | $187 | $21.64 | 0.50 | 1.9% |
| Belmontpeer | 32 | $7,271 | $63.18 | $105 | 0.65 | 2.6% |
| Scituatepeer | 34 | $7,209 | $711 | $18.25 | 3.23 | 2.9% |
| Andoverpeer | 28 | $6,322 | $94.07 | $42.90 | 0.79 | 2.8% |
| Miltonpeer · best in class of 30 | 31 | $7,307 | $76.91 | $270 | 0.50 | 2.8% |
| Westwoodpeer | 27 | $6,423 | $120 | $45.96 | 0.30 | 2.5% |
| Miltonbest in class of 30 | 31 | $7,307 | $76.91 | $270 | 0.50 | 2.8% |
| Nantucketlowest in class of 30 | 25 | $5,145 | $383 | $17.26 | 0.81 | 3.0% |
Formula aid per resident is the ten-year gross total; competitive grants are ten-year totals paid, FY2017–FY2026; earmarks are enacted clauses placed in the town over the same ten budgets. Add up to ten towns to the table; adding needs JavaScript.
Sources
Every figure traces to a public record.
Fairness Index
Representation
State money
What the town carries
- MassDOT Chapter 90 apportionment and Road Inventory
- FHWA National Bridge Inventory, 2025
- MassDOT Bridges layer (GeoDOT)
- North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative, road-stream crossings
- DCR Office of Dam Safety inventory, via MassGIS
- American Community Survey housing tables, U.S. Census Bureau
- State grant award lists (Community One Stop, MVP, Green Communities and others)
- DLS Databank, state-owned land eligible for PILOT
- DLS Databank, new growth
Costs and the 2½% limit
- DLS Databank, Schedule A general fund expenditures and revenues
- DLS Databank, health insurance expenditures
- DLS Databank, revenue by source (state aid)
- DLS Databank, cherry sheet receipts and charges by program
- DLS Databank, new growth and levy limits
- Boston-area CPI-U (BLS) and state-local price index (BEA), via FRED
Every figure on this page is built by script from these public sources. Method and limits.
Parcenomics helps towns turn numbers like these into a plan. Municipal services · Contact